Featured Articles

Vatican & B’Nai B’rith – a long story made short

There’s something pathetic and final about this photo of a wheelchair-bound Pope receiving B’Nai’Brith’s highest honor: how can the Church ever recover from such an image?

It was May 30, 2022, Pope Francis received an award from B’Nai’Brith (the most powerful Jewish freemasonry) to thank him for his support of them.

All Francis’s predecessors, from Clement XII onwards, have condemned in advance such allegiance to the Anti-Christ sect. Among many other documents, we can only recommend Leo XIII’s magisterial encyclical Humanum genus (04/20/1884).

All his predecessors? No. In fact, Leo XIII’s encyclical would seem to mark the beginning of a gray area, getting darker and darker as we approach Pope Francis.

Pope Francis, during the audience granted to B’Nai’Brith on May 30, 2022, delivered an address that can be found here. In this address, he recalls the already long history of contacts between B’Nai’Brith and the Vatican.

Incidentally, this wasn’t the first time that Pope Francis himself had met B’Nai’Brith representatives at the Vatican; on June 25, 2015, a similar meeting had taken place, immortalized in a B’Nai’Brith video. Both sides are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Paul VI’s “Nostra Aetate” address on October 28, 1965. The text of Pope Francis’ address on this occasion is available here.

On its website, B’Nai’Brith likes to recall that before he was known around the world at Pope Francis, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio hosted B’nai B’rith’s Kristallnacht commemoration in Buenos Aires in 2012.

Going back to Pope Francis’ immediate predecessors, we find:

A meeting in the Papal Hall on Thursday, May 12, 2011, between Pope Benedict XVI and B’Nai’Brith: “Dear Friends, I am pleased to greet this delegation of B’nai B’rith International. I recall with pleasure my earlier meeting with a delegation of your organization some five years ago.”

About five years ago, says Pope Benedict XVI, and, indeed, on Monday December 18, 2006, the text of Pope Benedict’s address on that occasion can be found here.

Ten years earlier, on March 11, 1996, His Holiness John Paul II addressed a delegation from B’NAI B’RITH International: “Dear Friends, I am pleased to welcome once more a group of representatives of B nai B’rith International.”

September 29, 1984, address by John Paul II to a delegation from the Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’RITH (Sons of the Covenant) Consistory Hall of the Papal Palace, Castel Gandolfo.

All of John Paul II’s addresses to the Jewish community can be found here.

Pope John Paul II was the first to visit Auschwitz.

On Wednesday May 17, 1978 (in French, not available in English), during a general audience, Paul VI had these words for the B’NAI’BRITH: “To the Members of a Jewish Association. We now extend a warm welcome to the members of the Anti-Defamation League of B nai B’rith. We are very grateful for your visit and for the respect it shows.”

As mentioned above, Pope Paul VI began this whole shift towards the Jewish community (and other religions) with his Nostra aetate on October 28, 1965.

Finally, as JTA reminds us, on February 3, 1958, “Pope Pius XII granted an audience to Philip Klutznick and Frank Goldman, president and honorary president respectively, of the B’nai B’rith, it was announced here today when the two B’nai B’rith leaders returned from a trip to Rome and a subsequent tour of Israel. The Pope congratulated Mr. Klutznick and Mr. Goldmann on the good work and philanthropy of the B’nai B’rith.”

Makes you wonder if, in order to find Pope Francis’ successor, we shouldn’t find out about any B’Nai’Brith meetings with this or that cardinal.

Here’s a fine example with Cardinal Christoph von Schönborn, Austria, receiving his Menorah from B’nai B’rith on October 23, 2013.

The reason for the festivity: The European Lodge of B’nai B’rith wanted to give Schönborn its symbolic award, the “Menorah for outstanding humanitarian achievement.”  Ach so! However, the cardinal is already 80 years old …

In any case, to cut a long story short, we may be witnessing a historic reversal of the balance of power.

Sources:

May 30, 2022: Bergoglio receives award from the B’nai B’rith
Bergoglio receives award from the B’nai B’rith

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO A DELEGATION FROM B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL Monday, 30 May 2022
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2022/may/documents/20220530-bnaibrith.html

HUMANUM GENUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON FREEMASONRY
Humanum Genus (April 20, 1884) | LEO XIII

 

Echo of the May 30, 2022 interview in the Jerusalem Post
In meeting with Pope Francis, B’nai B’rith calls for Accords expansion – The Jerusalem Post

Video B’nai B’rith Presents Gift To Pope Francis le 25 juin 2015
B’nai B’rith Presents Gift To Pope Francis

Video Papa udienza B’nai B’rith International 25-06-2015

Centro Televisivo Vaticano – Archivio
Papa udienza B’nai B’rith International 25-06-2015

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
TO MEMBERS OF THE “B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL” DELEGATION

Hall of Popes
Thursday, 25 June 2015
To members of the of B’nai B’rith International delegation (25 June 2015) | Francis

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO A DELEGATION OF B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL

Hall of Popes
Thursday, 12 May 2011

To a delegation of B’nai B’rith International (May 12, 2011) | BENEDICT XVI

GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO A DELEGATION FROM B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL
Monday, 18 December 2006
Greeting to a delegation from B’nai B’rith International (December 18, 2006) | BENEDICT XVI

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO A GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL”

Monday, 11 March 1996

https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/fr/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/atti-commemorativi1/pope-john-paul-ii/1995-address-to-representatives-of-b-nai-b-rith-international.html

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH”

Consistory Hall
Thursday, 29 September 1994

EN

List of John Paul II’s speeches to the Jewish community

Pape Jean-Paul II

PAUL VI GENERAL AUDIENCE Wednesday, May 17, 1978

Audience générale, 17 mai 1978 – Paul VI | Paul VI

B’nai B’rith leaders received by Pope Pius Xii at the Vatican

B’nai B’rith Leaders Received by Pope Pius Xii in Vatican City – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Nostra Aetate Rome, St Peter’s, October 28 1965.

Nostra aetate

 

Tucker’s Interview with Ernst Roets: The good, the bad, and the ugly

Also of interest: US Halts Aid To South Africa ‘Immediately’ As Trump Offers Fast-Tracked Citizenship For Persecuted White Farmers | ZeroHedge

This is an interesting interview. Lots of good stuff on the failure of post-apartheid South Africa—crumbling infrastructure,  incompetent government unable to provide electricity and water on a regular basis—or even carry out anti-White measures apart from taxation (“virtually every sphere of society is collapsing, with the exception of taxation”), that it’s unrealistic to expect Africans to respect or develop democratic institutions, the threat of mob violence, the need to hire private security services because the government protects neither property nor lives, and a law allowing land seizure from Whites given to Blacks without compensation (and if a Black South African sells his land to a White, the land can still be seized without compensation; but wait! The media claimed that there was compensation—null compensation, so just relax). And, as throughout the West, there is anti-White hate in high places based on American Critical Race Theory (“which essentially boils down to a theory that justifies the targeting and extermination of the white minority” because they “are not truly human”; “so they would say, no, [“kill the Boer”] is just a metaphor, but it’s preceded by a speech about how white people are criminals and should be treated like criminals, how everything they have is illegitimate and stolen, in which people are encouraged to go and invade their farms and so forth. And then they chant, “kill the Boer”). It goes without saying that The New York Times et al. would be thrilled if in fact there was genocide against White South Africans.

But despite all this, the commitment of White South Africans to stay in South Africa and their attachment to the country remains, and Roets predicts few Boers will take up Trump’s offer of refugee status and expedited path to citizenship. According to Roets, Trump would contribute far more if he had the U.S. pressure South Africa to ensure self-determination of different groups, including for the Boers. Roets’s solution is for communities to band together against the hate and violence and eventually develop a state of their own. He cites examples where armed Whites have stood up successfully against threats of mob violence and against murdering White farmers to the point that farm murders are declining. But Roets realizes this is not a long-term solution and that the Boer-descended people must have self-determination.

What’s frustrating is their discussion of why all this is happening—why so much anti-White hate that is applauded or ignored in the Western media. For example, Tucker asks this question and never has anything close to a satisfactory answer. They discuss the Whites-only town of Orania:

A neighborhood, a community of 3000 people, which is tiny even by South African standards, has received unrelenting negative media attention in the West. Why is that? Such a moral crime, such an outrage to have a community like that? …

Why, why, why the hostility. And that’s true globally, by the way, there’s not any White majority country. There are very few left. Very few left. But they’re just suspect because they exist. What is that?

 Various possibilities are tossed around—affluence, World War II, nationalism are rejected. The closest they come to getting it right is when Roets hints that there is a hostile elite that dominates all the high places in Western societies, in politics, the media, and academia, but they don’t make a serious analysis of who constitutes that elite and why they hate White people:

Ernst Roets [00:50:18] I’d like to believe, and I hope that I’m right, that it’s it’s a minority within the Western world that really believes this stuff [i.e., the idea that Whites are evil and don’t deserve a homeland].

Tucker [00:50:24] I think.

Ernst Roets [00:50:25] But they have significant power and influence.

Tucker [00:50:27] They do that.

Ernst Roets [00:50:28] They are the editors of newspapers. They are the prime ministers. They are professors at universities and so forth. And those are the people who are promoting this type of idea.

In other words, Roets has listed the three main sources of Jewish power in the West: The media, politics, and academia. They mention World War II, but neither try to come up with a serious theory of why the Western elites changed after World War II. My theory of course is that the post-World War II era saw the rise of a hostile Jewish elite in the media, in the universities, and—via donations enabled by Jewish wealth—in the political culture (e.g., the power of the Israel Lobby enabled by instilling fear in politicians). In other words, it has been a top-down political and cultural revolution enabled at least partly by Western individualism but motivated by Jewish fears of a homogeneous White society (paradigmatically National Socialism) and atavistic Jewish hatred toward the West that’s been festering for 2000 years because of the expulsions, pogroms, attempts at forced conversions, and most recently, the holocaust.

Re individualism, I have emphasized that a powerful mechanism of social control in individualistic societies is the creation of moral communities. Tucker seems to realize this:

But I actually think that the only thing the people currently in charge of most of the world, certainly of the West, are good at, is seizing the moral high ground. And they don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. They’re rotten. Their ideas are rotten, and they don’t deserve to lecture the rest of us about our moral inferiority. While they’re endorsing the murder of people for how they were born. Sorry.

Later, Roets seems to understand this:

So, I think what the Afrikaner people need to do is in a large, to a large extent, built their own self-determination. And I think that that’s what we what we intend to do. But it would help a lot if we can get recognition for this pursuit as a legitimate pursuit.

The problem, of course, is that self-determination for any White group is seen by our hostile elite as completely illegitimate.

They mention Elon Musk:

Tucker: But we were required to talk about South Africa in a very specific way and to repeat certain cliches really at gunpoint. And that’s changed in the past couple of months, and it’s really changed due to a South African émigré called Elon Musk. This is my perspective. You tell me yours. But he has made it possible through X, but also through statements he’s made on X to say the obvious, which is this is a crime against a beleaguered minority …, this is racism against human beings and it’s wrong. What do you feel about that?

Ernst Roets [00:51:53] Yes. So I don’t know how much of what is in his biography by Isaacson is true, but it does seem from his biography that he’s had some bad experiences growing up in South Africa, which is unfortunate. [In the Isaacson biography Musk describes how brutal South African schools and summer camp were—he had to learn how to fight. So it’s not surprising he hasn’t donated much to them. And no, he did not receive money from his father, a  common myth on the left; he designed a website and sold it. And although he did not found Tesla, when he got involved they had produced no cars and were really more of an idea than anything else.] And we’re still not sure quite how attached he still is to South Africa as a country. But looking at his X and his comments, it’s very clear that he’s interested. And the strange thing is, even though some people are very angry with him for speaking about South Africa, the only thing that he’s really doing is he’s picking up a mirror and he’s saying, look at what’s happening in South Africa.

Finally some good advice for all of us.

Roets:  And I honestly think in the situation we are in, it’s better to on the side of being too bold than to be on the side of having not enough courage or trying to find some form of solution through appeasement. And so we make mistakes in the process. And, and you know, sometimes you say something wrong or you do something wrong, but I’m very much convinced that if we’re on this course and we try to pursue what we are trying to pursue, rather on the side of having too much boldness and too much courage and facing the consequences, then having to face the consequences of having a lack of courage.

In the following somewhat rough transcript provided by TCN I have bold-faced passages that I think are of general interest.

*   *   *

Ernst Roets: Attacks on Whites in South Africa, Attempts to Hide It, and Trump’s Plan to End It

Tucker [00:00:00] So, I think for most Americans, news about South Africa ended in 1994. Both literally. We stopped getting a lot of news from the country, but also people’s views about it stopped evolving. Then that was the year that that apartheid ended, I guess officially you had elections. Nelson Mandela, still a hero in the United States, often referred to by politicians. And it’s only been, I think, in American media in the past couple of months that stories have come out of South Africa that have, you know, a lot of Americans have read that actually, the country seems to be falling apart and that the government is kind of genocidal racist. Yeah. And and then President Trump in the past month has basically said the same, the same thing. And it’s shocking to a lot of people, I think, how bad it is and how just how racist it is, you know, far more than apartheid ever was. And so I’m wondering, since you’ve just landed from South Africa, you live there? What? Describe the state of the country right now, if you would?

Ernst Roets [00:01:25] Yeah, well, perhaps I can start with your reference about the 90s, because it’s absolutely true. South Africa and America was very involved with the setting up of the political system in South Africa during the 90s. And it was, of course, the end of an historical era. Everyone is excited about the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the whole world’s going to be liberal and democratic, including African countries. Yes. And Samuel Huntington actually cautioned against this in 1996, saying, you know, when you wrote The Clash of Civilizations and he said, don’t expect of African leaders and African liberation movements to suddenly become Western when you give them Western constitutions because they are still African, so they will use it’s the democratic paradox. They will use democratic institutions to promote non-democratic ends. And that’s what we see in South Africa. We have a parliament, we have a very liberal constitution. But if you read the Constitution and you compare that to reality in South Africa, it’s two completely different worlds. The de facto [image] in the diaspora [and] reality in South Africa are irreconcilable. And so what has been happening in South Africa is firstly, there was this major excitement about the new South Africa, Nelson Mandela, the miracle story. You know, Oprah was spoke about this and Charlize everyone and and but the reality on ground level was in many ways the opposite. And I think a lot.

Tucker [00:02:42] From the beginning.

Ernst Roets [00:02:43] And gradually so so they started for example, with these be as they call it, its black economic empowerment, which of course has nothing to do with economic empowerment. They started with that in 1996. And so they actually said initially in the 90s that that’s the ruling party’s strategy. They still call it that, the national democratic revolution, which is about using democracy to promote socialist ends. And so the revolution, they say it goes in two phases. The first phase is present yourself as being liberal and democratic and get support, especially international support and local, and then use multi-party democracy as a way of promoting the goals of taking the country down the road to socialism. And so recently, they even went as far as publishing a document saying, we are now ready for the second phase of the revolution. We now have power. We have control of the state. We now you need to use this to become much more aggressive in our socialist policies. And we seeing this in a plethora of new laws all of a sudden in South Africa, which I think, I think it’s gotten to the point where it’s just not possible to maintain the view that people have had of South Africa for the last few decades and look at what’s currently happening in South Africa. It’s two completely different worlds, and hopefully or happily, at least a lot of people are starting to to wake up to this.

Tucker [00:04:03] So you said Samuel Huntington wrote that in 1996, two years after the election. I kind of thought that from day one, simply because I knew people there, and I was more familiar with the details of the mandelas. Yes. So but I think most Americans, I don’t think, had any idea, like, what was Nelson Mandela on Robben Island for? What was in prison for, well, for being black. Was there another reason?

Ernst Roets [00:04:31] Well, literally. So I have I have children and they are taught in schools. And the government prescribes what children should learn in history. And so the the official version is he went to prison because he was a good leader and the government didn’t like that. I should say that he certainly was the best that the ANC has ever had to offer. Yes, but the reason why he went to prison is because they started to contour his way, which was the military wing of the ANC, which became involved with military actions in South Africa with an attempt to overthrow the government. And actually and this is, this is I’m quoting from the ANC’s own policy documents that’s on their own website, so that this operation, when they started, which was used in the Rivonia Trial against Nelson Mandela, it was a strategy called Operation Miyabi. And the slogan of this operation was shamelessly, we shall attack the weak, and shamelessly we shall flee from the strong. So those were the circumstances in the 1960s.

Tucker [00:05:30] Pretty noble policy statement there will attack the weak and flee from the strong…

Ernst Roets [00:05:35] And it’s still on their website. You can find it there. So that was it was an attempt at an armed uprising. Now we can talk about everything that is wrong with the previous political system in South Africa. There was a lot wrong. But but it’s simply not the case that he went to prison for being a good leader.

Tucker [00:05:52] Well, I think that most people would acknowledge a distinction between military action, which is, you know, a a a fight, a war, a battle between militaries. And attacks on civilians, which is the something we call terrorism. Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:06:08] So in 1985, the ANC had a conference in Kabwe in Zambia, and they took a formal decision that in their so-called military operations, they would not differentiate between hard and soft targets. So it was officially a policy that says we can kill innocent people. And a lot of innocent people died in the political violence in the run up to 1994. And 90% of the people who died were black South Africans.

Tucker [00:06:34] Right.

Ernst Roets [00:06:35] It was.

Tucker [00:06:36] But noncombatants, women, children.

Ernst Roets [00:06:37] Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Women and passers.

Tucker [00:06:38] By, you know, people had nothing to do with anything.

Ernst Roets [00:06:40] Yes. Yes, especially.

Tucker [00:06:42] And so during that time that Mandela was in prison. I’m 55. So I remember this very, very well. His wife was effectively his spokesman, Winnie Mandela. Yeah. And she was lying, I said. United States, she was a hero. She was the mother of an emerging nation. You know, a woman of of peace and decency, really, a transcendent figure, a holy thing. And and then it turned out that actually, she was a murderer who had, you know, burned to death or supervised the murder of a bunch of different people. Tell us about that.

Ernst Roets [00:07:12] Yes. So let me firstly say that I have a lot of respect for Nelson Mandela, I think in terms of, of his efforts and and as I say, he’s I think he’s the he’s the best the ANC has ever had to offer. Winnie Mandela, his wife. Not so much. So she famously I mean, she’s been involved with a lot of things, including what what was called the Mandela Football Club.

Tucker [00:07:31] Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:07:32] [The Mandela Football Club] was a gang that was involved with violence and killings of innocent people. And she famously said at a political rally with necklaces and all matches, we will liberate this country. Yes. Which, of course is a reference to the necklace murders, which was very popular in South Africa and still happens in South Africa. That’s when you take and a rubber tire, you fill it with petrol or gasoline, and you put it around someone’s necks so that it’s bound around the arms and you set it on fire, and then you stone that person while he’s burning to death. And that happened. They were, I think 500 or 700 people were killed like that during political violence in South Africa. And she encouraged this. Initially, she denied it. And then it came out that it was recorded of her saying this. So, yes, it’s very bizarre that someone like Mandela is a hero today.

Tucker [00:08:21] And was a hero then. And so that to me was a sign that these are these are not, you know, liberators that their oppressors. Yeah, yeah. And so but no one in the West wanted to think that it was like a really simple tale of white oppression, of noble black people and by definition, the black. But I mean, there were oppressed by people, of course, and there were no black people. But the leadership always struck me as evil.

Ernst Roets [00:08:46] Yeah. So? So there were some better and some worse people in the leadership. I think an important component here that is very well documented. It’s not a secret, but a lot of people don’t seem to want to know this or recognize this is the very strong alliance that the ANC has always had and still has with the South African Communist Party and the extent to which they were supported, and not just by the Soviet Union, also by the Vietnamese and by multitudes as well. Implementing a what they call the people’s war strategy that they got from from Mao Tse tung. So, yes, it was very much the ANC saw themselves as being the African or South African frontier of promoting a socialist or a communist revolution.

Tucker [00:09:30] So how did it turn out?

Ernst Roets [00:09:33] Well, if you mean you mean in terms of where we are.

Tucker [00:09:36] Let’s let’s just follow different threads. So let’s just start with I don’t know. Technology and infrastructure. What did in 1993. South Africa was famously the most prosperous society in Africa by far right and up among the most prosperous in the world. Correct. They had nuclear weapons in South Africa? Yes. Yeah, yeah. What is it like now, 30 years later?

Ernst Roets [00:10:02] Well, the reality is that that virtually every sphere of societies is collapsing, with the exception of taxation, of course, in tax collection, that’s still very, very efficient. Maybe I can explain it this way. So America has a somewhat skewed tax system with, if my information is correct, about 85% of tax income tax in America is paid by about 10% of the people.

Tucker [00:10:28] I think that’s correct.

Ernst Roets [00:10:29] So 1 in 10 in South Africa, 85% of income taxes paid by 1 in 30 people. So it’s a very small number of people, a very small portion of of society that pays tax that is heavily taxed. And then about almost half of the population in South Africa get money from the government in the form of social grants. If you add government employees, conservative estimates say that 50% of people in South Africa get money from the government. Some estimates say it’s up to 60% of adults voting age. Adults get money from the government each year. So then this money, of course, is then used. It’s given out to social grants. But what’s left is used to set up these programs that are actively discriminating against taxpayers. Like, I mean, there are so many examples. One of the most recent ones is this is this blacks only fund that the government has set up whereby they give money to black entrepreneurs exclusively. So so this is happening. And then on top of that, so after you spend your tax money to fund these government programs that are discriminating against you, you have to spend what is left to do the things that the government was supposed to be doing. So the classical definition of a government is that it should protect life, liberty and property. The classical liberal view we’re a bit cicerone in, so we think a government has to do more than that. But but if we use those three things, the government’s not protecting our lives. There’s about if this interview that we are about to have is two hours, it’ll there will be about seven murders in South Africa in this time. Government does not protect liberty. It’s actively targeting schools of minority communities [i.e., Whites\, actively denying the identity and the rights of minority communities. And it’s certainly not protecting property. It’s actively involved with the program to empower the government to expropriate private property without compensation. So, so and then we have to use the money that is left to pay for our own private security, to become involved with organizations to for the things that the government was supposed to be doing with the tax money that we paid in the first place.

Tucker [00:12:34] One of the reasons that I find this story so fascinating is not simply because, you know, it’s like the classical, you know, irony of history. This, you know, group comes in with one aim and then achieves exactly the opposite. We’re going to have a, you know, we’re going to end racism and then make racism much worse, but also because they have gone about it in a way that’s almost like American with the same language, the same is our strength kind of sloganeering. And it’s had the same result, which is to basically kill whites. And I mean, this is true, and I, I, I wonder if you see that it’s almost like you imported our kind of intellectual class framework for this project.

Ernst Roets [00:13:17] That’s absolutely the case. So so there’s a theory. There was this video that just went viral on social media of this guy talking about how white people are subhuman and all of that, and they get, well, this is taught at universities in South Africa. There’s a theory called Azania critical theory. Azania is a Ben African word for South Africa. And they actually get this from Americans like Robin D’Angelo. Who’s this? Ibrahim? It’s the Ta-Nehisi Coates, these people, they get it from them. And then they put an African flavor on it, which essentially boils down to a theory that justifies the targeting and extermination of the white minority. And and so the theory, to summarize, goes more or less like this. There’s an African term called ubuntu, which means brotherly ness, or it’s about your internal humanity. It’s a Zulu term. And the theory goes that white people are incapable of having ubuntu. But ubuntu is the essence of humanity. So if you don’t have it, you’re not truly human. So it boils down that the logical conclusion is that if you kill a white person, then you did not actually commit murder. So this is not widely believed in South Africa, but this is taught at universities by university professors, and it’s certainly believed by radical elements.

Tucker [00:14:34] It’s a predicate for genocide. I mean, it’s always the same in every I mean, we’re watching in a part of the world now. They’re not fully human, right? So we can kill them because they’re fully human. Then it’s a, it’s a, of course, a grave sin to kill them.

Ernst Roets [00:14:44] Yeah. Well, well, we’ve always been saying that there’s not a genocide in South Africa looking at what happened in Rwanda and so forth. It’s not the same thing, but it is very alarming to look at some of these claims that are being made and to compare that to what was made in Rwanda.

Tucker [00:14:58] You know, and well, every country and, you know, genocide broadly defined in an attempt to eliminate a group of people on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

Ernst Roets [00:15:07] Yeah. And we have these political parties chanting, I mean, you’ve seen this, you’ve reported on this chanting, kill the bush, kill the farmer to a stadium filled with people. And it’s not just rhetoric. So they would say, no, it’s just a metaphor, but it’s preceded by a speech about how white people are criminals and should be treated like criminals, how everything they have is illegitimate and stolen, in which people are encouraged to go and invade their farms and so forth. And then they chant, kill the Boer, kill the farmer and they make these hand gestures. Of course, the book is a reference to the Afrikaner people. And and but reality is also that the farmers are being attacked and killed on their farms. So it’s not just a metaphor. And and our attempts at researching this has found that there is an increase in farm attacks when obviously when the political climate becomes heated or warmer. And these type of statements are made in a way, in a way that’s highly publicized. You do get an increase in farm attacks. And it and it’s very brutal and very horrific farm attacks that we see.

Tucker [00:16:04] So the farmer texture attacks against white farmers, not.

Ernst Roets [00:16:08] Not not exclusively white farmers, but it’s attacks against farmers in South Africa of which the majority is.

Tucker [00:16:12] White. Right. Okay. So this has been going on a long time. I think it’s been well documented. I believe you wrote a book about it, which has become very sold, a lot of copies on Amazon, I notice. Yes. And so none of this is like a secret and all of it’s verifiable because, you know, dead people are pretty easy to track because they’re dead.

Ernst Roets [00:16:33] Yeah, we have the names of the people who’ve been murdered. Exactly. Yeah.

Tucker [00:16:36] But in the United States, the country that inspired the revolution that you’re living through, our media have ignored that and then gone beyond ignoring it to attack anyone who brings it up as a white supremacist. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:16:51] Well, well, I can tell you so many stories about this.

Tucker [00:16:55] Please do.

Ernst Roets [00:16:55] For example, I was on your show a few years ago to talk about the farm murders and the extent to which we were attacked by American media as a result of that. I had someone from CNN come see me in my office in Pretoria and to interview me about farm attacks. And the entire interview was about you. So you would put things to me and say, did you know Tucker Carlson said the following? Do you agree with this statement? And did you know that Donald Trump said this? And are you comfortable with this? And so I paused them at one stage and I said, what are we doing? I thought we had to talk about farm murders and what’s happening in South Africa. But the only. So. The argument was that because Trump made that comment about farmers in 2018, it has to be a non-existing issue because Trump is a liar and everything he says is false. And the same with you because you spoke about it. That means that the problem doesn’t exist, and we have to prove that it doesn’t exist in order to get to you.

Tucker [00:17:48] But not only doesn’t exist, you’re not allowed to complain about it existing. Yes. Yes. So it’s somehow a moral crime to notice and to not like it when people are murdered for the color of their skin.

Ernst Roets [00:18:04] It’s bizarre. It’s.

Tucker [00:18:05] Well, it’s not bizarre. It’s it’s a they’re telegraphing genocidal intent when they’re telling you, no, you’re not getting killed. And yes, it’s a good thing that you are.

Ernst Roets [00:18:13] Yes and no. You’re not getting killed.

Tucker [00:18:15] What are they [saying?].

Ernst Roets [00:18:16] Saying? Yeah, it’s no, you’re not getting killed. And if you are, you deserve it, right? Because of a variety of things. Because the attackers are poor or because remember all the horrible things that white people have done in South Africa and outside of South Africa. So so there’s always a justification. And so another example, just in 2018, again after you spoke about this and after Trump spoke about this, the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, came to America and he spoke at an event in in New York. And he said there are no killings of farmers in South Africa. And he just flat out denied the existence of the problem. And he said this on an international platform. He said it’s not happening, it’s not true. And and the worst of it all was how the media knew this was wrong, especially mainstream media and South Africa. They knew that it’s not true. And so they immediately rushed to his defense, writing articles like this is what the actually meant to say. And then they sort of justify what’s happening. And so it’s we really do sometimes feel that our biggest battle is not primarily against what the government is doing, but against how the media is.

Tucker [00:19:22] But just consider this. I mean, if, you know, if Trotsky’s in Kalgoorlie in 1994 said, boy, I you know, I lot of us seem to be getting hacked to death by machetes and reporters or political figures said, shut up. You know, you’re a Tutsi supremacist for saying so. I think we could fairly say the people shouting them down are pro-genocide of Tutsis. Yeah. I mean, what what’s the other explanation? I don’t really get it. I mean, what honestly, what’s the other explanation?

Ernst Roets [00:19:53] Well, the the explanation that is used in court cases. So by the way, this kill the Boer chant was found in quote, not to be hate speech according to South African law.

Tucker [00:20:02] Not hate speech. Killing people don’t hate speech. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:20:04] Chanting about killing people.

Tucker [00:20:06] You know why it’s not a hate speech? Because it’s not speech they hate. That’s why.

Ernst Roets [00:20:09] Well, maybe that’s.

Tucker [00:20:10] Because they approve of.

Ernst Roets [00:20:11] So the arguments that that is used or are used to defend this type of rhetoric would always be something like you need to see it in context. You need to remember the apartheid system. You need to remember what these people went.

Tucker [00:20:24] Through that they deserved to be killed. You need to remember that.

Ernst Roets [00:20:27] That’s. Well, so the argument is that the actually commemorating the historic struggle, and that’s why they are still chanting this.

Tucker [00:20:33] I would disagree with you. I think what they’re saying is the people getting murdered deserve to be murdered. So stop complaining about it.

Ernst Roets [00:20:39] Yeah, well, I few people are saying that out loud, but it does seem to be.

Tucker [00:20:43] I mean, look, at some point, you know, I don’t need you to explain your motive. If I have a clear glimpse of your actions. If I know what you’re doing. I don’t have to hear you explain why you’re doing it. I already know because the motive is displayed in the action. Did you know what I mean? Yeah, sure. So, in other words, if I pulled out a gun and shoot you and somebody said, did you not like earnest? Yeah, I can say whatever I want, but I just shot you. So I think it’s kind of fair to infer that I didn’t like you. Yeah, right.

Ernst Roets [00:21:11] Yeah, but. But the motive is also explained in the words. So they’re trying to defend the word. It’s a famous story of Chamberlain and Churchill. You know, when Chamberlain came back from meeting Hitler and he say, no, well, I met him. And, you know, I think we’re going to find peace. And then Churchill said, no. Well, I read what he said and I believe them. Yeah. And so you can just read what they’re saying. If you read the policy documents of the ruling party, they say they want to convert South Africa into a communist society. They want to have a revolution in South Africa. And if you listen to the more radical parties to the left of them, they openly chant about killing white people. So so they say these things out loud.  And now they are obviously more to the fringe. You find the more extreme rhetoric in South Africa. But but it’s very alarming and and how people just rush to their defense all the time.

Tucker [00:21:58] So that’s the part that bothers me. Like I’m not surprised. I’ll just I’ll just say it. I’m not surprised at all. I watched what happened in Rhodesia when it became Zimbabwe in 1980. And, you know, something identical happened. There was a lot of killing, and they drove it, you know, to the bottom rank of nations, the poorest country in the world. And following exactly the same script, I always thought that what happened in South Africa, I want it to be wrong. Turns out it wasn’t. What really bothers me is that the West has allowed this and cheered it on. Because I live in the West, I live in the United States. So like, I don’t want to think that my leaders are for killing people on the basis of race. But watching how they stood by and applauded Barack Obama’s applauded all this stuff. It tells you everything about Barack Obama and other American leaders, doesn’t it?

Ernst Roets [00:22:47] Yes. And this brings us back to the 90s. So during the 90s, it was again after the Cold War, and the world and especially the West was high on ideology. And this idea that, you know, the world will become liberal and everyone’s going to become like us, and everyone in the world is just an American waiting to be liberated, and we just need to go and liberate them from their own traditional beliefs and so forth. And so it really is the case that that America and many Western countries played a very significant role in creating the South Africa that we have.

Tucker [00:23:16] I’m aware.

Ernst Roets [00:23:17] And so it’s we we don’t want other people to fix our problems on our behalf. We want to solve our own problems. But you can certainly make the case that that the West has a moral responsibility towards the people in South Africa.

Tucker [00:23:29] First, the West forced through sanctions, boycotts, the change of government that put the ANC in power. So, absolutely, in the same way the West is armed, Ukraines, they have an obligation to make sure. Yep. You know, to at least know what’s happening and to be honest about it, not to hide their own. Yes, responsibility for the crime.

Ernst Roets [00:23:50] Yeah. And so there’s this false dichotomy in South Africa, all with regard to South Africa, that if you are against what’s happening in South Africa now, that means you want the apartheid system. So you have a choice. And there’s one former judge recently said this who’s retired. He said that we have a choice in South Africa between a moral system that is dysfunctional, which is the current system, or an immoral system that is a functional one, which is the former system. And so the problem is, if you criticize what’s happening in South Africa. Now you get accused of wanting to return to the apartheid system, but the truth is you can reject both. You can say, we don’t want the apartheid system and we don’t want what’s happening in South Africa at the moment. We want to govern ourselves. We want freedom. But but it seems that a lot of people are incapable of making that conclusion or leaving any room for saying that both these systems are wrong and we need a better system, a system that is much more decentralized, a system in which the various nations who live in South Africa, because South Africa’s very big. It’s almost as big as Europe. The various nations living in South Africa should just govern themselves. And that’s not what’s happening in South Africa. And I think it’s a worthy cause to pursue.

Tucker [00:25:00] So can I. I think I’m hardly an expert in South Africa at all, but I am American, so if I can, I just give my overview of what of the different groups in South Africa and you correct me. But just so people following on because I think it matters for reasons I’ll explain. So. So the Africa, they’re basically two big white populations in South Africa. Historically, they’re called the Boers. They Afrikaners who are were religious, basically religious refugees, a mixture of Dutch and French Huguenots, Protestant, Dutch, probably the French who moved to southern Africa for reasons of religious liberty. Okay. And then you had the English with, I think were after the Boer War in power. Yes. Who mostly were there for economic reasons and had in many cases passports back to Great Britain. And then you had a couple of different African black groups, the largest of which, I think to this day are the Zulus. Yes. Who like the Afrikaners, the Boers and the English, were not native to the area at all. They were newcomers who arrived, I think, just right before the Boers did.

Ernst Roets [00:26:11] Yeah, not long before.

Tucker [00:26:12] Okay. This is true.

Ernst Roets [00:26:13] Yes. Yes, yes.

Tucker [00:26:15] And they, you know, as invading groups [Zulus] often usually do kind of exterminated the native population who were what we would call the Bushmen or.

Ernst Roets [00:26:24] Yeah, the Khoi in the San, as they’re also called. Thank you. Yes.

Tucker [00:26:27] Okay. So that’s my, like, dumb foreigner overview. Is that roughly true? Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:26:31] So. So just can I tell you a story from. I hope you will. Yes. It’s some people call it the origin story of the Afrikaner people. And it explains a lot about who we are today. So we were settled in the Cape, the Prato Afrikaners, who were still the Dutch, the French and the Germans. We were then colonized the Cape in, I think 1810 by the British. It was during the Napoleonic.

Tucker [00:26:55] When when did the Afrikaners for the Boers first get there? 1652 1650.

Ernst Roets [00:27:02] That’s what, 150 years before the Declaration of Independence or something. Wow. Something like that. Yeah.

Tucker [00:27:07] So it’s a long time ago. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:27:08] So? So my great great great grandfather, Nicolas Roets, who was the first Roets who came to South Africa. Came more or less the time when George Washington was a teenager. So he was eight years older than George Washington. So. So my family has been in Africa since, you could say, since George Washington, since the time of George Washington, just before.

Tucker [00:27:30] The United States was a country.

Ernst Roets [00:27:31] Yeah, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So so the Cape.

Tucker [00:27:34] Do you have another passport?

Ernst Roets [00:27:35] No, no, no, I don’t I don’t really want one.

Tucker [00:27:39] Right. And do most Afrikaners have other passports.

Ernst Roets [00:27:42] No most don’t.

Tucker [00:27:44] Yeah okay.

Ernst Roets [00:27:45] But but this goes to the story I want to tell you. So. So we were colonized by the British. And we, you can call it the proto Afrikaners then said, you know, we don’t want to be governed by anyone else. We want to govern ourselves and to they opted to move into the interior of South Africa, which was called the Great Trek, and they didn’t know what they would expect. They said they reject slavery. They want to foster good relations with local tribes, which they did. There were many treaty signed, an agreement and so forth.

Tucker [00:28:11] And they did not hold slaves.

Ernst Roets [00:28:14] They were slavery in the Cape Colony before that. But when the Great Trek, that was around the time of the abolition of slavery, and they also rejected slavery, they explicitly said so. So they then went into the interior. And the leader of the Great Trek was a guy called Retief.

Tucker [00:28:29] Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:28:30] Who went to negotiate with the Zulu king, then gone. And so he said, what can we do to buy land from you for our people to live? The agreement was they had to return cattle that were stolen by another tribe with a king called Sekunjalo. So they went. They retrieved the cattle. They brought it to the zoo, looking at the Zulu king, then gone. King then says to them that we have to celebrate. So leave your weapons outside the logger, come inside and we’ll have a celebration. During the celebration. At one stage he chanted Bull Lani about which means kill the wizards! So they took Retief and his commando, his group, to a nearby U and they slaughtered him. They had. They slaughtered him. Lost because they wanted him to see. They want to make sure that he sees his people and his son murdered a few months later before so. So after that, they went on an extermination mission. They killed women and children in the loggers and so forth. A few months.

Tucker [00:29:24] No longer is a group of wagons pulled into a.

Ernst Roets [00:29:27] Circle. Yes. Correct? Yes. And so a few months later, his body was found with the treaty on which the Zulu king signed, giving them some land. So they then started a initiated a punishment commando, a group of 3 to 400 men to to counter attack the Zulus, which eventually led to the Battle of Blood River, one of the most significant battles in our history, where they found themselves completely surrounded. They were about, let’s say, 400.

Tucker [00:29:57] Before numbers.

Ernst Roets [00:29:58] Yes, surrounded by 12,000 Zulus. And so they had this wagon, and my great great great great grandfather was was in that lager, and he was the religious leader. His name is Sorrell Sally-ann. So, Sorrell.

Tucker [00:30:11] And what was their religion?

Ernst Roets [00:30:13] Christian.

Tucker [00:30:13] Dutch. Reformed.

Ernst Roets [00:30:14] Reformed, yes. So he said to them, listen, we need to make a vow to God. And so he wrote a vow which they all made. And the vow said that we standing in front of the God in heaven and earth, to make a vow to him, that if he protects us in the battle that lies ahead, we will commemorate this day in the years to come, as a day of thanksgiving and a Sabbath. And we will also tell our children their story, and we will build a church, and we will make sure that the honor of the victory goes to God and not to us. So they made this vow and the battle took place. And the result was that not one of the Afrikaners were killed. 3000 Zulus died in that battle.

Tucker [00:30:56] Not one was killed.

Ernst Roets [00:30:57] Yes. Yeah. And and so the reason why I’m telling the story is not because. Not to point to the Zulu people. We have good relations with the Zulu, and we’ve worked with him. This was, of course, the one major battle, but we’ve had good relations with him over the years. But it just it says something about, firstly, why the Afrikaner people are so patriotic. It says something about why we are so attached to African soil and why why we are still religious with a very religious community. We have some problems in terms of belief and so forth. But broadly speaking, the Afrikaners are compared to Europe and compared to some parts of America, still a very religious people. And it also says something about why we are so attached to the country and why we don’t want to leave. We want to stay there because our ancestors have been there for hundreds of years, and we fought and died for our our space there. And we’ve gotten used to it to to a certain extent.

Tucker [00:31:47] What’s the only country that you have, isn’t it?

Ernst Roets [00:31:49] Exactly. We don’t have any other country. It’s like we can’t go to. We can’t go back to England. We’re not Dutch anymore. We you know, we have there’s a slogan in South Africa, let’s go back to Holland. But, I mean, I’ve been to Holland, I’ve been to Amsterdam. It’s a beautiful city, but I don’t feel like I’m like I’m at home when I go there. It’s no foreign city that I’m attending. We became a people in Africa, which is why we are called the Africans. We named ourselves after the continent and our language. Afrikaans is named after the country.

Tucker [00:32:19] But you’re being called invaders by people whose ancestors were also invaders.

Ernst Roets [00:32:22] Yeah, well, who came from the north of Africa? Yes, from. From where Cameroon is and so forth. Who came down firstly towards the east of Africa and then along the Great Lake Lakes, eventually ending. Ending in South Africa? Yes.

Tucker [00:32:38] I think it’s what you said is really important because I think from the American or the Western perspective, there’s this idea that the Afrikaners, the Boers, are worse. They’re the worst whites, they’re worst. The English.

Ernst Roets [00:32:51] Yes.

Tucker [00:32:52] English, by the way, created the concentration camp during the Boer War. Yes. Yep, yep.

Ernst Roets [00:32:57] That’s true.

Tucker [00:32:57] Winston Churchill was there and kind of behave pretty dishonorably, I would say, on many, many levels for hundreds of years in South Africa. But that’s just my opinion. Yeah, but that the borders are somehow the worst and that they have no right to be there. And I think history suggests something different.

Ernst Roets [00:33:16] Well, absolutely. So on my mother’s side, I descend from the British. My great grandfather fought in the First World War, fought for the British. And so in many ways, culturally, we’ve become very close to the British because of the influence over the years. And I don’t think there’s friction today between the Afrikaners and the British, but it certainly is the case. I mean, the concentration camps were horrible. I recently read The Gulag Archipelago, and Solzhenitsyn writes in there that the first concentration camps were invented by the Soviets, but that’s actually wrong. The first concentration camps that we know of, of at least this type of concentration camps were during the first during the Anglo Boer War, where about 30,000 women and children died. But there was a lot of the great thing about the Anglo Boer War was that it was in many ways a of first for the world. It was, some people call it the first international propaganda war, because it was in a time when newspapers became popular. So there was this propaganda war in Europe with regard to the Boers or the Boer War, with a lot of people saying the Boers are boorish, and that’s where the word comes from. Evidently, if someone told me that’s where the word British comes from, it’s to be sort of, you know, very old style and, you know, not very sophisticated. Rough. Yeah, rough around the edges. And so there was a lot of propaganda like the book is being compared to, to Wild Hogs and things like that, but that’s okay. The word butcher was actually used for a long time as an insult, almost like Jew, like calling someone a Jew. It’s like, oh, you’re a typical butcher. But I mean, we’re very proud of that word. It’s, it’s it’s something that we take pride in. It’s meat in many ways. There’s some debate about the difference between poor and Afrikaner, but it’s broadly speaking, synonymous. But I mean, we’re very proud of our history in South Africa. And we’ve become a very sophisticated community with an immense treasure chest of literature, of poetry, of philosophy, all of it in our own language that we did over the last, especially the last 100 years, which of course is under threat now.

Tucker [00:35:14] Your language not spoken by anyone else in the world?

Ernst Roets [00:35:16] No, it’s some it’s it descends from Dutch. Yes. And so if you spend some time as an Afrikaans person with some Dutch friends, eventually you start to follow. But it’s not Dutch anymore. There’s been influences about other languages and so forth. So? So it’s they are people who speak it all over the world because. But that’s only because people who have left from so many people have left South Africa. Some estimates say it’s about a million people, white people who have left South Africa over the last few decades.

Tucker [00:35:45] How many are left? How many whites overall in South Africa and how many of them are African?

Ernst Roets [00:35:50] So? So it’s more or less about 5 million who are left? The Afrikaner communities, about 2.7 million. And the total population is about 60, just over 60 million.

Tucker [00:36:01] And now it looks like you’re, as you said, entering some kind of final stage where they’ll be. I mean, they’ve been expelled from a bunch of different African countries, as you know. But it sounds like the the plan is to force them to leave or kill them or what is the plan, exactly?

Ernst Roets [00:36:19] So, so. Yann Smuts, the famous general who worked with Churchill, also famously said that South Africa is a country where the best never happens and the worst never happens. And so we sort of believe that, and we hope that the worst outcome is is an unrealistic outcome. We do know that the most important thing that we need to do now is to be very well organized in terms of our own communities, to be very well connected to each other. And, you know, there’s this whole debate about the individual and the community in philosophy. And we’ve realized that if you’re just an individual, you are completely helpless. If you if you’re not part of a community, if you don’t have if you if you’re not given meaning by the community of which you are a member. You, you just you. You’re completely helpless against this. The Leviathan, the state. So? So we need to be well organized. We need to be armed. We need to have well-functioning communities who look after each, after look after the poor, do all the things that the government supposed to be doing, but also look after our safety. So we drive patrols at night. We are involved with tens of thousands of volunteers, involved with patrols, looking after our own safety and so forth. But but I think the bigger question here is the future of South Africa. And this is a controversial thing to say, but it’s so obvious that it’s not sustainable. It’s it’s not going to work and it’s just getting worse. So the only possible solution is not simply to say we need a different party in power, because the underlying foundations is still it’s problematic. The only possible solution is to move toward a system with subsidiary authorities, which could imply something like a republic for the Afrikaner people, it could imply a kingdom for the Zulu people. It can imply different types of authority depending on the community. But South Africa is a country made up of a long list of minorities. It’s a list. If you look at it from a racial perspective, you can say there’s a black minority, a black majority, but the black majority also consists of a variety, as you mentioned, a variety of nations and tribes and so forth.

Tucker [00:38:16] And plus massive immigration into your country. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:38:19] Yeah. It’s that’s a it’s a very serious problem. Yeah. We virtually don’t have borders in South Africa.

Tucker [00:38:23] Right. But and a problem of course, for the country, but also a demographic fact that it’s not as if there’s this like monolithic black majority there all kinds of different components of the black majority. Right. Yes. Don’t necessarily get along. Yeah, yeah. And but a lot of Zimbabweans murdered in South Africa phobic violence.

Ernst Roets [00:38:41] Every now and then there’s this upsurge in violence against foreigners. So they get accused. What typically happens is people come in from the north or the north of South Africa, like Malawi, Zimbabwe and so forth, Zambia and so forth. And then they work and they accept jobs for lower wages. And a lot of them work really hard. Yeah. So that leads to friction because there’s very high unemployment in South Africa already. And so it leads to friction within among the local communities. And then every now and then we have this upsurge in very, very brutal xenophobic violence. And so yeah, it’s the border is it’s virtually non-existent. The border to the north of South Africa.

Tucker [00:39:17] So what would it look like to have autonomous republics? And is that allowed under your 94 constitution? I thought there was some provision for that.

Ernst Roets [00:39:28] Well, it’s interesting that you know this. Yes. So there’s a section in in the South African Constitution, section two, three, five that provides for self-determination for communities. Now there’s some ambiguity in terms of how to interpret that section. But it is there is some constitutional provision for that. And so during the 90s, the negotiations for a new South Africa, the more conservative groups who were white and black, who were arguing for self-determination, were made fun of by the ruling party at the time, the National Party and the ANC, of course, and also some Westerners. This is just backwards. This idea of governing yourself is somehow an old, ancient thing that we should move away from. And part of the problem, part of the reason why they were made fun of is the question is, how do you do that practically? And the only way to practically do that is to have areas where people have concentrated where where people form a de facto majority, and they are such areas like, for example, when you talk about the Zulus and so forth, the Afrikaner people are pretty much dispersed, although there are some areas where we live more concentrated. But this, for example, and there are some initiatives to get Afrikaners to move closer together. And I think I think that’s a solution that, that we need to really focus on is getting the Afrikaners to move closer.

Tucker [00:40:41] Clustered in Pretoria, was my understanding the majority?

Ernst Roets [00:40:44] Yes, Pretoria and in the Western Cape and the south of the country. And then they were on your initiative in the Northern Cape.

Tucker [00:40:52] So tell us about that. What is Orania?

Ernst Roets [00:40:54] So Orania is a is a cultural communities and Afrikaner cultural community. It’s fairly small. It’s about 3000 people, but it’s growing rapidly. It’s growing by about 12 to 15% per year. And the idea is like it’s a culture. It’s privately owned. It’s a community where the Afrikaner culture can survive and flourish, and it has been growing at quite a pace, even though it’s from a small base. But the idea is to say this is an area where we are the majority and we make our own decisions, we make our own laws, we govern ourselves, we make our own decisions in terms of what happens with our tax money, what happens, you know, with our streets, what type of money.

Tucker [00:41:32] Murder other people, repress other people. And then then why? Maybe you have an answer to this. A neighborhood, a community of 3000 people, which is tiny even by South African standards, has received unrelenting negative media attention in the West. Why is that? Such a moral crime, such an outrage to have a community like that?

Ernst Roets [00:41:57] Yeah, it’s it’s bizarre the extent to which Orania has been attacked, especially in the international media. So I spoke with a friend in Europe recently who said to me, I’ve only read negative things about Orania, but that’s why I like it. Because. Because I know who’s right.

Tucker [00:42:12] A lot of us have reached that conclusion. Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:42:15] And so? So in South Africa there are many traditional.

Tucker [00:42:17] Lying is just guys pause and just say the lying is unsustainable when you know you’re up. But open up the New York Times and it’s a safe bet that whatever they’re telling you is the opposite of the truth. Then you’ve reached a point where it’s like, why even have media coverage at that point? You know what I mean? Yeah.

Ernst Roets [00:42:33] Also through statements he’s made on X to say the obvious, which is this is a crime against a beleaguered minority on the, you know, this is racism against human beings and it’s wrong. What do you feel that?

Ernst Roets [00:42:33] So in South Africa, there are many cultural communities, like Zulu communities, different, let’s say there are many black cultural communities. And when they are reported on by the media, they would say, this Zulu cultural community, so-and-so or this close our cultural community is doing this. But when it’s raining, they say it’s a whites only enclave. That’s that’s the term they use, even though it’s a cultural community. So so black communities. What has.

Tucker [00:42:55] That? What is that? Why, why, why the hostility. And that’s true globally, by the way, there’s no any white majority country. There are very few left. Very few left. But there’s just suspect because they exist. What is that?

yre has a as a, an explanation of how to make sense of what how how we how we derailed in trying to make sense of the Second World War. I mean, obviously, you know, Hitler was evil and all of that. I mean, no one disagrees with.

Tucker [00:46:09] That, obviously.

Ernst Roets [00:46:09] But so so the wrong lesson from the Second World War is that nationalism is evil or a sense of pride, and your identity is evil. And there are a lot of people who would really like us to believe this, that we need to abolish communal identities.

Tucker [00:46:24] MacIntyre’s line only when they’re white.

Ernst Roets [00:46:27] Yes, yes, yeah, of course, it’s.

Tucker [00:46:28] Actually I don’t think anyone thought the lesson of the war was that nationalism is evil, only that nationalism, when whites do it.

Ernst Roets [00:46:33] Yeah, when whites do it. Yeah. So McIntyre’s line is that that a sense of communal identity and pursuing what is good for your people is a good. And what went wrong with the Second World War was that Hitler was trying to pursue this good at the expense of all other goods. He was detaching this one thing from everything else. And in the end, you cannot do that without committing evil and inflicting evil. And so I think it’s a bizarre situation where we are in currently.

Tucker [00:47:01] But so I thought and think that the lesson the Second World War was that targeting people for violence and discrimination, but especially violence on the basis of their immutable genetic characteristics was wrong. Like I that’s what I was taught.

Ernst Roets [00:47:17] At in here in that.

Tucker [00:47:18] Even I believe that now as much as I’ve ever believed it. And but it’s just crazy to see people say that on the one hand. And then for a lot of people, a lot of our leaders, the lessons the Second World War was no. That’s good. Yeah, actually, you need to target more people on the basis of their immutable ethnic characteristics, their whiteness.

Ernst Roets [00:47:38] Yes.

Tucker [00:47:39] And kill them. Like that’s the lesson. No, that’s the opposite. Yeah. Right.

Ernst Roets [00:47:45] Yeah. Of course. Well, well, so in South Africa and this is part of the bizarre part of it is the ruling party in South Africa. They would write in their own, in their own policy documents. They say our ideology is a blend of race, nationalism and socialism. That’s literally what Nazi means. Now, I’m not saying they’re Nazis, but in some sense they’re calling themselves Nazis. If they say we promote a combination of race, nationalism and sex, I don’t.

Tucker [00:48:10] Think people can hear themselves. I mean, I think even this conversation’s be like, oh, that’s a Nazi. Conversation was like, no, no, we’re arguing. I wanna speak for myself. I’m arguing against what I thought the core idea. Was it or the core bad idea in the Second World War, which is that you should attack people, hurt people because of how they were born.

Ernst Roets [00:48:30] I’m just based on who they are.

Tucker [00:48:32] I’ve always been opposed to that. I will always be opposed to that. But now it’s like complaining about it makes I don’t know. It’s also.

Ernst Roets [00:48:41] You’re not even allowed to say this.

Tucker [00:48:42] It’s also fake. It’s also fake. Like it’s actually this is all a cover for something much more sinister that is not really related to the Second World War. Like, I just don’t think it’s it doesn’t make any sense. As an intellectual exercise, you just, like, immediately hit a brick wall. Yeah. Like what you’re saying is nonsensical. Right.

Ernst Roets [00:49:00] Yeah. Well, it’s difficult to make sense of it because it’s completely irrational.

Tucker [00:49:04] It’s completely irrational. Therefore, I think it’s a lie because it doesn’t even like you don’t even I don’t have especially high IQ. And it’s super obvious to me that it doesn’t make any sense to like what? Really? I guess there’s no answer. I don’t know the answer, but there’s something very deep going on here where the leaders of every country in the world all of a sudden decide this one ethnic group needs to be killed, like, well, I.

Ernst Roets [00:49:28] Think one part of it is something that you’ve said before, which is affluence. The people, people in the Western world have become very affluent and unfortunately, as a result of that, very self-centered. And in many ways they’ve become disconnected from their communities, disconnected from from the tradition.

Tucker [00:49:45] So there’s no doubt about that. But I mean, I would, you know, spend a lot of time in the in the Gulf, in the Persian Gulf. No most affluent countries in the world per capita. I think I mean, they are. And, you know, whatever you think of them, you don’t see a lot of Arab leaders being like, we really were too Arab. That’s the problem where I hate myself for my Arab ness like that doesn’t even occur to them. To their great credit, by the way. I don’t think self-hatred is ever good. I don’t think hating anybody on the basis of race is ever good. It’s it’s only this one group. Yeah, that does it.

Ernst Roets [00:50:18] I’d like to believe, and I hope that I’m right, that it’s it’s a minority within the Western world that really believes this.

Tucker [00:50:24] Stuff, I think.

Ernst Roets [00:50:25] But they have significant power and influence.

Tucker [00:50:27] They do that.

Ernst Roets [00:50:28] They are the editors of newspapers. They are the prime ministers. They are professors at universities and so forth. And those are the people who’s. Promoting this type of idea. And I think most hardworking, ordinary people don’t fall for this.

Tucker [00:50:40] Well, certainly most authentic Christians reject it out of hand immediately.

Ernst Roets [00:50:45] It’s essentially anti-Christian. In many wayw.

Tucker [00:50:47] It is the definition of anti-Christian, I think. I mean, that’s my look. What do I know? Don’t take theology advice from me. But that’s certainly my truest, deepest belief that it’s this is immoral, you know, no matter who it’s done to. Yeah. So one, I should have said this is the answer. But one of the reasons there’s been this real change in people’s willingness in the West to talk about what’s happening in South Africa in an honest way, not with the false pieties of Desmond Tutu was so great. Whatever Desmond Tutu, you know, think of Desmond Tutu. Not much. But we were required to talk about South Africa in a very specific way and to repeat certain cliches at really a gunpoint. And that’s changed in the past couple of months, and it’s really changed due to a South African emigre called Elon Musk. This is my perspective. You tell me yours. But he has made it possible through X, but also through statements he’s made on X to say the obvious, which is this is a crime against a beleaguered minority on the, you know, this is racism against human beings and it’s wrong. What do you feel that?

Ernst Roets [00:51:53] Yes. So I don’t know how much of what is in his biography by Isaacson is true, but it does seem from his biography that he’s had some bad experiences growing up in South Africa, which is unfortunate. And we were we’re still not sure quite how attached he still is to South Africa as a country. But looking at his X and his comments, it’s very clear that he’s interested. And and the strange thing is, even though some people are very angry with him for speaking about South Africa, the only thing that he’s really doing is he’s picking up a mirror and he’s saying, look at what’s happening in South Africa. And he’s he’s just he’s retweeting videos from rallies in South Africa and. Exactly. He’s. He’s literally just saying to people, look at this stuff that’s happening in South Africa.

Tucker [00:52:36] Yeah. What do you think of this? Are you okay with this?

Ernst Roets [00:52:38] You know, I think what a lot of people I think I can speak for a lot of people in saying that we’re really, really grateful for what Elon Musk is doing to shed light on what is happening inside.

Tucker [00:52:48] It must be so weird to live in a country that has received so much attention from Western media, so much attention. I mean, there’s no other country in Africa where your average American knows the name of three famous people. You know what I mean? There’s no I’m not even close to the name. Three famous people from, you know, Congo. Yo, you know, but every American knows about Nelson Mandela, probably Winnie Mandela.

Ernst Roets [00:53:11] Desmond Tutu announcements was also very big. Who became this poor general who was a a advisor to Churchill.

Tucker [00:53:19] Who joined the English in the I think in the First World War, like. Right. You know.

Ernst Roets [00:53:23] Yes. First and Second World War.

Tucker [00:53:25] Right. But the first war was, you know, not even 15 years after the Boer War. So that was a pretty remarkable decision that he made. I don’t think most people are that in tune, but yeah, they know the bigger ones. But of what happened post 94 and they know all about apartheid and all that. But it must be so weird to be living in this country where all this stuff is happening and nobody is saying anything about it.

Ernst Roets [00:53:50] Yeah, it’s it’s crazy. It really is. And I have to say, the last few months has been quite a ride in terms of what we, you know, the, the executive order signed by President Trump and statements coming from the US.

Tucker [00:54:03] To tell us about that executive order, if you don’t mind.

Ernst Roets [00:54:05] So so the executive order is, is a very strong reprimanding of what the South African government is doing. It says that the South African government is well, as Trump said, is treating certain sections of society very badly. And and this and that the you ever.

Tucker [00:54:22] Call that’s it. That’s the Trump thing. Yes.

Ernst Roets [00:54:25] And ever.

Tucker [00:54:25] Said.

Ernst Roets [00:54:26] And the US will not stand for this. And so it boils down to the sanctions in an important way, which is not. And one part of it says that that they will grant refugee status to Afrikaners if they want to go to the US, which I don’t think, in all fairness, we really grateful for that, for the public stance taken by the US and in a certain sense they haven’t gone far enough. But in a certain sense, I don’t think the the granting of refugee status is is much of a solution. Some people will take that up, but that’s why I told you the story of the Battle of Blood River and The Vow. We are culturally very, very attached to to South Africa. And so most.

Tucker [00:55:07] Think your family got to South Africa around the time my family got the United States, and.

Ernst Roets [00:55:11] This is hundreds of years.

Tucker [00:55:12] Is my country.

Ernst Roets [00:55:12] I think I’m ninth generation. And and so.

Tucker [00:55:16] I also have a mother of English descent. And I’m also on, unlike you. I’m ashamed of it. I’m sorry. Just kidding. Sort of. Not really, but. But you know, of course, I mean, it’s your country. I mean, what? At that point. What? You know.

Ernst Roets [00:55:29] So I think I think what a better response from the US could be is to take a firm stance against what is happening in terms of what the South African government is doing. But then to say, how can the US support minority groups in South Africa who are really working for some form of self-determination? I think America should recognize that it does have part in the problem in terms of what happened. Historic. Are you.

Tucker [00:55:56] Kidding? Yes it does, big time.

Ernst Roets [00:55:58] Yes. And therefore I it’s it’s reasonable and I think it’s fair. And I’m, I’m hesitant to say this because I’m not an American, but I think it’s reasonable to say that America has some form of a moral responsibility not to fix South Africa, but at least to to try to rework this mess that has been created because it was involved in creating this mess.

Tucker [00:56:17] We’ve mobilized our State Department to defend, quote, trans rights in the Donbass. Okay. We’ve wade into every sectarian conflict in this world for the past 80 years. Yeah, I think we can certainly say that a minority group targeted for genocide in the country we’ve been involved in really intimately and for my entire life, that that group has a right not to be killed and to have some measure of self-determination. I think we can do that. Yeah. That’s not too big.

Ernst Roets [00:56:42] Absolutely right. Yeah. And the solution, I would say the most sustainable solution is to help such communities to to govern themselves, to have self-determination. And it’s not only obviously it would be in our interest, but but I think it’s also in the interest of the West and of America.

Tucker [00:56:57] So just on principle, like every other group in the world, has the right to its own homeland, except white people. Like what? Yeah. Like, tell me. Just explain to me how that makes sense. Either no group has the right or every group has the right. It’s really that simple. And if you want to say no, group has. Right. Okay. You might even convince me, I don’t know. I’m not a race guy, actually, by my temperament at all. I’d kind of like to ignore it, but as long as some groups have a right to self-determination, then every group has a right. It’s that simple. Yeah. And if there’s a special carve out where one group doesn’t have a right, you have to explain to me why that group doesn’t have that right. Yeah, absolutely.

Ernst Roets [00:57:30] No, it’s absolutely fair. Well, I think South Africa is a I mean, what the hell is.

Tucker [00:57:35] Why are we playing along with this nonsense?

Ernst Roets [00:57:38] Yeah. It’s this this narrative has become this massive stream that it’s turned into a rapids on a river that just pulls everyone along. And this narrative just says, if you’re white, then there’s inherently something wrong with you.

Tucker [00:57:50] It doesn’t make any sense. And it’s leading toward a really bad conclusion, obviously, as it as it has for every other group targeted in this way has really suffered in a bit. And there are a lot of them. Okay. It’s not you know, there are a lot of them. Yep. And it never ends up well. And I just don’t know why we’re playing along where you’re not even allowed to say how you haven’t been. I don’t care anymore, obviously. But again, either every group has a right to self-determination or no group does. You can’t have this system where, you know, some groups do or all groups do, but one. No, no, no, it’s all or nothing on this.

Ernst Roets [00:58:27] Yeah, well, I can tell.

Tucker [00:58:28] Me how I’m.

Ernst Roets [00:58:29] Wrong. No. Well, I can guarantee you that. That when I get back home, I’m going to be in a lot of trouble for this interview. It’s.

Tucker [00:58:36] I don’t know why, though. I mean, like, what’s the what’s the kind of argument? I don’t I don’t really get it. Like, what is the kind of argument? There’s only one group on the entire face of the planet that doesn’t have the right that every other group has. Like, tell me how.

Ernst Roets [00:58:47] It’s it’s it’s it’s really like.

Tucker [00:58:50] Maybe there’s a good answer. I’m waiting for it.

Ernst Roets [00:58:52] No. Well, we don’t know what the answer is.

Tucker [00:58:53] So there is no answer. And so because there is no answer, the way that uniformity is maintained is just through threats like shut up. Yeah. You’re a bad person for saying that you’re a Nazi. It’s like, no, no, I hate the Nazis. I must speak for myself. Yeah, the Nazis, of course. I hate the idea that people are attacked for something they can’t control, like how they’re born. Yeah. Their genetics. I just don’t believe in that. I never will. I’m a Christian. I don’t believe in it. You can call me whatever you want. I’m actually making the opposite case. And I haven’t done anything to be ashamed of. And if defending the right of people not to be murdered because of how they were born is a crime, then I’ll plead to it. Yep. But I actually think that the only thing the people currently in charge of most of the world, certainly of the West, are good at, is seizing the moral high ground. And they don’t deserve it. They haven’t earned it. They’re rotten. Their ideas are rotten, and they don’t deserve to lecture the rest of us about our moral inferiority. While they’re endorsing the murder of people for how they were born. Sorry.

Ernst Roets [00:59:52] It’s a house of cards, you know.

Tucker [00:59:53] So it’s not this house of cards. It’s exactly right.

Ernst Roets [00:59:56] Yeah, it’s built, and it’s a very shining house of cards, and it’s very proud of its accomplishments, but it’s not sustainable. So South Africa has been a victim of waste and imperialism.

Tucker [01:00:07] I’m aware in.

Ernst Roets [01:00:08] Many ways ideologically currently ideological imperialism. But also but and this is interesting, the ANC that’s governing South Africa today was founded just after the unionization of South Africa in 1910. And they said that this this was one of the major triggers that sparked us to start this movement. And the unionization was after the Boer War, before the Union. South Africa was a a variety of different republics and colonies. Yes, governing themselves and unionization effectively meant that all of these different subsidiary authorities were combined into one big South Africa as we know it today. The borders of South Africa were actually drawn pretty much by the British in 1910, and the ANC were vehemently opposed.

Tucker [01:00:51] A long history of border drawing. Yes.

Ernst Roets [01:00:54] You see this when you have this completely straight, you know, that’s that’s artificial. But and so the borders we have for South Africa today was a product of Western imperialism. And now those in power with love very much like to maintain these borders because they have control. And so if we are truly anti-colonialism and anti-imperialist. We should we should return to a position where people govern themselves. We should rethink the borders.

Tucker [01:01:19] You’ll never be allowed to do that. I mean, let’s just cut right to the the knobs part of this that will not be allowed is never been allowed. You will need either to get to force, which I pray you don’t because I hate that I hate killing. Or you will need the assistance of a powerful outside force, that force that makes it happen. That’s just a fact. Is that fair to say?

Ernst Roets [01:01:42] Yeah. No, I think it’s fair to say.

Tucker [01:01:43] I mean. Right, so anyone who says I want to kill you, you know, kill the boar, you’re subhuman. Those are not people are going to say, yeah, go ahead and create your own independent state and not bother anybody because you’re going to be way more successful and prosperous than they are, and they’re going to hate you on the basis of envy. Of course, that’s already happening.

Ernst Roets [01:02:03] And we have to ask them nicely to make certain concessions.

Tucker [01:02:06] Now, I guess it’s not going to happen. So. So what is your plan?

Ernst Roets [01:02:11] Well, I think the, the plan is to to firstly to be well organized communities, to have a very strong sense of community, a sense of pride in who we are, to remain Christian and have a strong faith, strong family ties and so forth. That’s where it starts. And then other than that, the second step, you might say the plan is to to just create certain realities on ground level. So it’s one thing to say, you know, we want more authority or more self-determination, but you have to, in a sense, create that so that what you have created can be recognized. It’s there’s no point in saying, well, you guys can have your own place, but that place doesn’t exist. So, so I think, I think what the Afrikaner people need to do is, is in a large, to a large extent, built their own self-determination. And I think that that’s what we what we intend to do. But it would help a lot if we can get recognition for this pursuit as a legitimate pursuit.

Tucker [01:03:04] So you don’t think I sort of just didn’t ask you to pause? I should have you began this segment of the conversation by saying the current scheme, the current arrangement, is not going to work. Yep. I think most people I’m certainly I as an outsider, instinctively kind of want it to work.

Ernst Roets [01:03:23] Well, it’s a good story. It sounds like a good story.

Tucker [01:03:25] Yeah. It is. I mean, I’ll admit to being kind of a dopey liberal in some ways. I really prefer the idea of, you know, people living together in harmony. It’s just. I just feel that way. I can help it. That’s my enlightenment legacy or something I think you should do with reality. And I definitely don’t think you should be allowed to kill people because the way they look. Period. Oh, so by the way, why how did these people why did they go on TV? Like they’re on the right side? They’re like endorsing genocide. Like I don’t understand. I don’t understand how they’ve been allowed to get away with being on Winnie Mandela side and feeling self-righteous. I just don’t get that. I think it’s disgusting. Whatever. I said that five times, I can’t say enough. But how do you know it won’t work? Like ANC obviously isn’t a criminal gang. Totally incompetent. You don’t have electricity on the dam. It’s not working. They’re just stealing everything. Got it. Stealing the copper out of the wires. But there’s not another political coalition that could run it effectively.

Ernst Roets [01:04:24] Oh, so. So you mentioned electricity in Johannesburg. The mayor just a few days ago announced that people should just wait seven days and then they will have water. So it’s not just an electricity problem. There’s a water problem.

Tucker [01:04:36] It’s waterproof. You’re gonna have a food problem at some point.

Ernst Roets [01:04:38] Well, if the farmers are targeted. Yes. So so there are many reasons why it’s not working and why it won’t work. And well, everything you can think of points to that direction. One is just the data, as I said, like you can look at the levels of how crime is increasing, how unemployment is increasing. Our government service delivery is increasingly failing. Everything, everything. I honestly health how health is, is deteriorating everything except tax collection. That’s one aspect of it. Another aspect of it is just the extent to which people in South Africa are turning their back on politics. There’s this political vacuum in South Africa, and you can see it, for example, with the extent to which people have stopped voting, how voter turnout has dropped significantly in elections. People just don’t get interested. They vote reluctantly, those who do. So that’s one aspect.

Tucker [01:05:29] Interesting.

Ernst Roets [01:05:31] Even so.

Tucker [01:05:31] Why do you think that? Because they feel hopeless.

Ernst Roets [01:05:33] Because they feel the political establishment is completely disconnected. They don’t. It doesn’t resonate with him. They don’t. People vote for parties even though they don’t really like them. But they think this is of all the parties. I don’t like any of them, but this one is the least bad, so I’ll vote for that one. So there’s a complete disconnect between the politicians or the political elite in South Africa, even the opposition parties and the people. And so there’s this political vacuum that has developed and this vacuum is filled. As my friend Aronson settle in South Africa says, either by the good guys or the bad guys. It’s filled by the bad guys in terms of organized crime. So we have these mafias and gangs coming to the fore with significant power, and to such an extent that the government is afraid of them. Or it can be found.

Tucker [01:06:17] That is the story globally, isn’t it?

Ernst Roets [01:06:19] Yeah. Well, yeah.

Tucker [01:06:21] The drug cartels are one of the most powerful governments in the world, or they’re not even in government.

Ernst Roets [01:06:24] It’s incredible. Yeah. So we have a construction mafia, for example. If you if you build a shopping center, the construction mafia turns up and they tell you you need to employ our people, or else we’re going to sabotage your building and, you know, stuff like that. And it’s it’s a regular.

Tucker [01:06:38] Thing and you can’t fight.

Ernst Roets [01:06:39] Them. No, you can’t, you can’t fight them. And but the vacuum can be filled by the good guys. And that’s well organized communities who take control of what is important to them. And so the future is very and that’s what analysts and scenario analysts and so forth have been saying that the future is one of deterioration, where you will have communities who will be much worse off than they are today because of the bad guys filling the void. And you might have flourishing communities because of good guys filling the void. And so that’s another reason. But I think the most important fundamental underlying reason why it’s not sustainable is it’s a political system that is detached from the reality in South Africa. The reality is the distance from Cape Town, the south to the north, or South Africa is the distance from Rome to London. So it’s a big country number one. But it’s not homogenous by any means. It’s very diverse. Yes, 11 official languages.

Tucker [01:07:36] It’s not just just to restate. It’s not just black and white at all.

Ernst Roets [01:07:39] No no no no no, it certainly not. Indian communities is what we call colored communities and Africa. And they are various different tribes. You could say all cultural communities within among black South Africans and among white South Africans. So it’s very diverse, different languages, different cultures. There’s a and and now we have this political system that just says you have individual rights. And, and in some ways the Constitution, even though it was very much celebrated when it was adopted, it was called the Constitution in the world, and the most liberal, most democratic, and so forth.

Tucker [01:08:11] The Constitution guarantees everything, but you get nothing.

Ernst Roets [01:08:13] Yeah, exactly. That’s exactly it. So we have what they call third generation rights first, second and third. It’s a very vast network of rights that you have in theory and but but then the question is, so there’s this idea that the highest authority is the Constitution, but it’s not possible for a written document to have the highest authority. The highest authority is with the person who gets to interpret it. So if, if say so.

Tucker [01:08:37] Boy, is that true. So then.

Ernst Roets [01:08:39] So for example, section 25 of the Constitution in South Africa, which the government is trying to change, it’s a private property rights clause. They want to change it, but currently it says the government can expropriate your property if it’s in the public interest. Now, if you ask me as a Westerner, when is it in public interest to expropriate property? It would be something like they have to build a big highway, Or maybe there’s a military emergency or something like that. If you ask one of if you ask a judge who is founded in this ideology we’ve just spoken of, they would say it’s in the public interest for white people not to own land. So so it’s a question of interpretation. You can have a wonderful document, but it boils down to how do you interpret it. And so and that’s why I’m saying it’s not compatible with with realities on ground level. And you know we can. And then there have been many lawfare in South Africa, many, many, many South Africans, a very good example of political court cases. And we’ve won many and we’ve lost many. But it’s it’s, it’s it’s a it’s a ship that is sinking. That’s the.

Tucker [01:09:37] One. It all seems fake. I mean, it seems like and I again, one of the reason I’m so fascinated by your country is I think it’s it’s on a trajectory that I recognize as an American. So you have these legacy institutions that sort of go through the kabuki of dispensing justice. But it’s not justice, actually. It’s totally disconnected from justice doesn’t mean anything.

Ernst Roets [01:09:57] Yes.

Tucker [01:09:58] And you have this Constitution which is beautiful, which is, you know, ignorant. The only power resides in the people who interpret it, as you said. And so then you reached kind of the endpoint or the most recent endpoint, which is the idea that whites can own land. Can you explain this?

Ernst Roets [01:10:15] Yes. So they have been trying to change the South African constitution, the property rights clause, to empower the government to expropriate private property without compensation. That’s the buzzword. It’s just just.

Tucker [01:10:25] Steal the land.

Ernst Roets [01:10:25] Yeah, it’s they call it it’s expropriation without compensation, but it’s confiscation of property. That’s what it is.

Tucker [01:10:31] Well, how is expropriation without compensation different from stealing?

Ernst Roets [01:10:34] No, exactly.

Tucker [01:10:35] But shoplifting.

Ernst Roets [01:10:37] It’s just it’s it’s flabbergasting to see the extent to which, again, academics and analysts and journalists are rushing to the defense of the South African government in South Africa. Yes. So, yes, one of the many bizarre things that they would say, they would say, this is all a lie. You guys are lying. It’s not expropriation without compensation. It’s expropriation without compensation. But compensation can be null. So it can be zero compensation.

Tucker [01:11:03] So it’s not happening, but it’s a good thing than it is. Yeah. That’s it. That’s it as always. Right.

Ernst Roets [01:11:07] And so the president has just signed the expropriation bill in South Africa, which is now which they now. Oh he signed it. Yeah yeah yeah yeah. So so and so there’s still an attempt to change the Constitution and there’s now a new bill in, in, in process. It was just announced, I think a week ago that they want to pass through Parliament that says that 80% of that’s what it boils down to. That 80% of land or property in South Africa must be owned by black people. So because it’s it it must be racially representative. And so I want to tell you a quick story about this, because it sort of highlights the ideology. I was at a land summit in South Africa, and a spokesperson for the Department of Land Reform spoke, and it was very clear from his speech that the problem is white people owning land. It was a racial thing. It was very clear. But it’s, it’s it’s colored with words like restitution and and correcting historic injustices and so forth. And so I asked him at this summit, I said to give here’s an example. And what would the government’s position be on this? The example is a white guy owns a farm. The government takes it from him to correct historic injustices, and they give it to a black guy, and it’s a black farmer. And maybe a year or two down the line, this black farmer decides he doesn’t want to be a farmer anymore. He wants to sell this land. And the buyer is white. And now there’s a white farmer again. What’s the government’s position on this? And the spokesperson for the department says in that case, the correction of the injustice has been reversed. So it’s it’s it’s completely bizarre.

Tucker [01:12:41] And then what’s interesting is we’ve seen this exact movie frame by frame, right next door in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, which was one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, one of the big tobacco producers in Africa.

Ernst Roets [01:12:54] It’s a it’s very sad what happened to that.

Tucker [01:12:57] Well, it’s shocking, but it’s again, it’s, you know, like organized government sponsored racism doesn’t work. And I don’t care how often The New York Times defends it. It’s always the same. And what that is like right next door to you. And you have a refugee crisis in your country because of it.

Ernst Roets [01:13:15] And our government are willing. So what do.

Tucker [01:13:17] They say to.

Ernst Roets [01:13:18] That? No, they say that Robert Mugabe is a hero and that Zanu pf the party’s party.

Tucker [01:13:23] Yeah, yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:13:24] Is is a good party and it’s a liberation force and we respect them. Okay.

Tucker [01:13:28] So again no one wants to use the term. But this is this is genocide. I mean that’s what that is. It’s like targeting a group of people for extinction elimination on the basis of immutable characteristics. Like I don’t know what is there another genocide, a genocide definition I’m not aware of.

Ernst Roets [01:13:45] Well, you I think I think you can say they are threats, threats of that happening. I there’s not a genocide happening.

Tucker [01:13:50] And I’m not saying there is I’m saying that’s what’s going like. What’s the other end point here?

Ernst Roets [01:13:55] Well, well.

Tucker [01:13:56] You’re not human. You can’t own land. You should be killed. What am I?

Ernst Roets [01:14:00] And yeah, if you own land, by definition, that’s illegitimate. Regardless of whether you bought the land, it doesn’t matter how you got the land.

Tucker [01:14:06] Because of your race.

Ernst Roets [01:14:07] Because of your race? Yes.

Tucker [01:14:08] Okay, if we can’t say that’s wrong, then you know anyone who can’t say that’s wrong and you want to make excuses for that as a dangerous person? I don’t know what else to say. Put another group in there. I don’t care what group it is.

Ernst Roets [01:14:21] So? So the ANC in South Africa wanted to. They have this process of name changes. And by the way, this targeting of statues came from South Africa. It’s happening in America. It started in South Africa, you know, burning down statues and so forth. So and they’ve had this long process of name changes. And one thing they wanted to do change the street in which the US embassy is in South Africa to Fidel Castro Avenue. And that’s one story. The other one is they wanted to change one of the main streets in Pretoria to name it of the multitude. And then some of the opposition parties said, are you crazy? Do you know what Mao Tse tung did? And the response was, remember, Mao was never convicted of any crime.

Tucker [01:14:58] So it’s so I say it does seem not only like one of the worst governments in the world, but one of the dumbest also.

Ernst Roets [01:15:08] Well, so I think I think there’s but there’s some explanation as to why the South African government has gone so off the rails, and it’s that they’ve gotten a free pass for decades.

Tucker [01:15:18] Yeah, that’s right.

Ernst Roets [01:15:18] Because of this narrative, they could do and say whatever they want. They got no criticism or very little criticism, no very careful criticism. And that’s why I think they they they’ve gone ballistic after the recent comments by Trump and people like Elon Musk and so have that.

Tucker [01:15:33] I’m sorry, I don’t I don’t follow it that closely. Have they. Those comments were noticed and.

Ernst Roets [01:15:37] Said, oh yeah, absolutely. Yeah. It’s a it’s the biggest story in South Africa at the moment really.

Tucker [01:15:42] And what are they saying?

Ernst Roets [01:15:43] Well, they’re saying that we’ve the organizations that I was involved with at the time, they’ve committed treason that we’ve been charged for treason.

Tucker [01:15:50] You’ve been charged with treason? Yeah. For what?

Ernst Roets [01:15:53] For speaking well, among others. For me. Speaking with you about what’s happened to treason. Yeah, because it’s bad mouthing your country. That’s.

Tucker [01:16:00] That’s the argument I am.

Ernst Roets [01:16:02] So I don’t know if it was this one of the opposition parties.

Tucker [01:16:06] I wanted to go to Cape Town for Christmas. Just on vacation. I didn’t have time in the end.

Ernst Roets [01:16:10] But you left?

Tucker [01:16:11] Probably. I probably shouldn’t go without your saying.

Ernst Roets [01:16:14] No, no. You should come to South Africa now. You should definitely come, buddy. I don’t know if there’s going to as much as will come from the treason charges, but that’s certainly. Yeah, but you’ve.

Tucker [01:16:23] Been charged with treason. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:16:24] They were. They were official complaints filed at the police. Yes, yes.

Tucker [01:16:29] What’s the penalty for treason in South Africa?

Ernst Roets [01:16:31] It would be imprisonment. We don’t have the date. We don’t have the death penalty.

Tucker [01:16:34] No, they just as Nicholas. You. It’s informal.

Ernst Roets [01:16:38] Well, I’m. I’m honestly. Seriously, I’m more concerned if the questions about safety, about mob justice in South Africa than than the actual government coming off the horse.

Tucker [01:16:49] So what does that look like?

Ernst Roets [01:16:51] Well, we we have we I think you reported on this in 20 2021. I think when there was this massive riots in South Africa, when they just in.

Tucker [01:17:01] Durban.

Ernst Roets [01:17:02] In Durban. And then I remember that, yeah, it sort of spilled out to routing to Johannesburg to a lesser extent. And it’s just people it’s almost like, you know, smelling blood and becoming extremely violent. Oh yeah. And then people join in by the thousands.

Tucker [01:17:15] I’ve, I’ve seen that with my own eyes a couple of times. Yeah. It’s really scary.

Ernst Roets [01:17:20] So someone, a friend from Europe once asked me, are you not afraid that the government is going to come to your house and take your stuff? And my honest answer is not that much. I’m more concerned about a mob showing up.

Tucker [01:17:32] And so then what do you do?

Ernst Roets [01:17:34] Well, if if you are alone, you can’t do anything. If you’re a well functioning, well organized community, then the community, you can call people on the radio. You can you can get the community to take a stance. And I think I think that’s one too.

Tucker [01:17:46] So you don’t get lynched.

Ernst Roets [01:17:47] Yes.

Tucker [01:17:48] You got a lot of lynchings. And so I mean, that’s again added to the irony file. I mean, South Africa is like the world capital of lynching.

Ernst Roets [01:17:55] Yes.

Tucker [01:17:56] Oh I noticed.

Ernst Roets [01:17:56] Yeah. It’s not so much white people who are.

Tucker [01:17:59] Targeted, I’m aware know it of blacks.

Ernst Roets [01:18:01] Yeah yeah, yeah. Yeah. That that certainly it has happened in the previous dispensation. It’s still happening to an extent. Not as much as in the past, but people don’t know that it’s still happening.

Tucker [01:18:10] And to people accused of crimes and. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:18:12] And it’s partly due to the fact that the police is absent. Right. So especially in townships, someone is a rapist and the police doesn’t show up, doesn’t do anything, and then the local community just deals with him. That type of thing happens.

Tucker [01:18:25] In a very brutal way. Yes, yes.

Ernst Roets [01:18:29] Yeah, it does happen in a brutal way.

Tucker [01:18:31] Yeah. Yeah. I I’ve noticed like pretty shocking. Like almost like I wouldn’t want to describe it.

Ernst Roets [01:18:37] Yeah. Yeah I mentioned the Nicholas murders before. So we, we have that and it’s the same with the xenophobic violence. It’s It’s very unfortunate. And if we had a well-functioning police service, maybe that would have helped. But we don’t. So. So in South Africa, the we can check the numbers. I’m pretty sure the private security sphere in South Africa is almost as big as private security in America. But America’s much larger private security in South Africa is more than double the police and the army combined. If you add the police and the army up together and you multiplied by two private security, the amount of private security officers in South Africa, security guards is, do you.

Tucker [01:19:16] Have the right of self-defense, the right to defend yourself and your family?

Ernst Roets [01:19:21] We do have the right to self-defense. We can own firearms, although it’s not as easy as in America. Yes, but you can you can do that. And you can get arms, especially through a private security company. You can there’s some room to make sure that you can protect yourself.

Tucker [01:19:34] And does it work?

Ernst Roets [01:19:35] Yes, yes. In terms of the farm murders, we’ve seen that statistically that that in communities where areas or communities where people are well organized with our videos, where they drive patrols, where they are trained, there’s a decrease in four murders. You can clearly see that actually, in the last few years, the phone murder numbers have come down a bit. And it’s not because because the the incitement has gotten better. It’s not because the police is more efficient. It’s because local communities have become much more involved with their own safety. And so that’s certainly one of the most important building blocks of the.

Tucker [01:20:12] So what now that the president I’m using air quotes again around president, I mean, the whole system is fake. Obviously it doesn’t affect justice. It doesn’t improve the lives of its citizens. It’s a no sense of legitimate government. And by the way, it’s not the only illegitimate government in the world. But but anyway, what happens when they try? The government tries to put this law into effect to try and act on it. You know, the government shows up your house as you can’t. You know, you’ve lived in the same plot for 100 years. You can’t have a because you’re white. We’re taking it like what? How do people comply?

Ernst Roets [01:20:47] No, no, people won’t comply. No, I mean, that’s partly why I told this story at the beginning is the Afrikaner people and the farmers are very stubborn. This in Afrikaans we say R2 hard hit it. So this I will.

Tucker [01:21:00] Farmers. You have to be stubborn to be a farmer in the first place.

Ernst Roets [01:21:03] Yes, and especially a farmer in private equity.

Tucker [01:21:05] I mean, it’s easier.

Ernst Roets [01:21:06] Yes, exactly. So it’s, it’s it’s a common trope among farmers to say that I would rather die on my farm than to hand it over to the government. And so I think if they really tried to act on it, which they haven’t tried, they are land invasions in South Africa, but it’s not so much the government, it’s mobs and gangs and so forth invading people’s land. But if they really tried to act on these attempts at expropriation, there’s going to be a massive backlash. And that’s there’s no doubt. So what they would say is this is actually what the government is up that that we need to do what happened in Zimbabwe, but without violence. But that’s how they would argue it.

Tucker [01:21:46] And that’s just how we need to. What happened in Zimbabwe?

Ernst Roets [01:21:48] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But this time with it’s one of the.

Tucker [01:21:50] Worst crimes of my lifetime.

Ernst Roets [01:21:52] Yeah. Well, they say publicly. Yeah, you can find it online. And so the argument is but but we are we’re going to do it a bit better. We’re going to do it without violence. But what that means is we’re going to do what happened in Zimbabwe. And you are not going to resist. That’s what it means. But obviously people will resist when they try to do that. There’s no doubt about it. But I do think the government is very incompetent. You know, they have these very radical ideas. I don’t know if there is a competency competency to actually go through.

Tucker [01:22:20] That’s that’s the absolute. I lived in Washington, DC almost my whole life. And that was absolutely true there. You know, the government make all these local government make all these threatening noises, do this, do that, do the other thing. It’s against the law to do this. Whatever. And you just kind of ignore people. Just ignore it.

Ernst Roets [01:22:35] And so there are some business organizations in South Africa who now use the term maximum appropriate noncompliance. That’s what they encourage private companies to do. So it’s a form of civil disobedience. It’s with all these big that’s these black empowerment lawyers just say we’re just not going to comply.

Tucker [01:22:54] I know someone who had a thriving business. He built himself in South Africa. And the government shut up and said, you’re handing half your business to your new partner who didn’t do anything. Just show up and collect the money. And it’s just he stole half his business. Because it’s all theft. I mean, it doesn’t. I know that black South Africans haven’t gotten richer in the last third. No.

Ernst Roets [01:23:12] No. And the government owns the land. Most of the land that they expropriate, they don’t give it to people. It goes to the government.

Tucker [01:23:17] So what the government did say, like, how about no, look, you’ve no legitimacy and you haven’t been here any longer than I’ve been here. And you have, I mean, and I have guns too. So, like, I’m not participating. How’s that? Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:23:30] Well, civil disobedience can be a wonderful thing. And we’ve had some examples of successful civil disobedience campaigns in South Africa, where the government had this. They call it the e-toll system. It’s like a big tax system on the highways that just it’s an electronic text toll system that. But people just by the thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands just refuse to to comply to get the tags and so forth. And eventually they had to stop it because even though it was law, people just didn’t do it. And the same with Covid. Covid was a good example that a lot of. We’ve had a bizarre Covid. I mean, everyone has had a bizarre Covid, so we had these strange laws like you can’t buy flip flops during Covid.

Tucker [01:24:07] Yeah, those are deadly.

Ernst Roets [01:24:08] Yeah, yeah. And you cannot buy shorts, all that and stuff. You cannot buy cooked chicken. We had these really, really bizarre Covid laws. It’s a crime to buy cooked chicken or to sell cooked chicken during Covid. And so people just people just said, well, we don’t care. We just going to do what we want. And so there was a massive civil disobedience phenomenon in South Africa during the Covid lockdown. And so I think people have learned and the government couldn’t do anything about it. I think people have learned that and that that you can actually do a lot if you just don’t comply with these completely ridiculous, irrational laws.

Tucker [01:24:47] That sounds I mean, I I’m the one in South Africa. But again, I have lived in Washington, D.C., so that sounds totally right to me. I wonder, though, about what you said us, that when we first started with this, about the the mob justice. That does sound scary to me.

Ernst Roets [01:25:03] I think that’s that’s a bigger threat.

Tucker [01:25:05] What do you do about that? How do you live in a country where, you know, like your neighbors could rise up against you?

Ernst Roets [01:25:12] Yeah. So? So, so we’ve had some examples of this. It started with the Rhodes Must Fall movement. The it was a oh the roads. Oh this will John roads. So this one guy defecated on Cecil John roads. A statue at was a duke. What university was it in in in Cape Town. And then they started this movement dedicated on. Yeah, yeah.

Tucker [01:25:34] That’s attractive. Well, that’s kind of that’s kind of like the level actually that you’re dealing with.

Ernst Roets [01:25:40] Yeah. And so they.

Tucker [01:25:41] Jumped on it.

Ernst Roets [01:25:41] They started this movement of tearing down statues, which eventually boiled over to America. And that’s how it got to America. It started in and it boiled down over to Europe and so forth. But it started with that, the targeting of statues. I think it was 2012 or something. It was. Yeah, maybe before that even. And it became a mob. It and and they, they, they wore T-shirts with slogans like kill the whites, like on the t shirts. And, and it became very violent and very overtly racist. And it was students running around just, you know, setting things on fire, burning down buildings and stuff like that so that that is a real threat. And then later we had the Feesmustfall movement that was university students demanding that education must be free. You shouldn’t pay to go to university. And it was the same thing. And now we’ve had these more recently we’ve had political parties sort of taken up that thing, this kill the Bush and so forth. And so I honestly think in South Africa, the threat of mob violence is a bigger threat than the golf.

Tucker [01:26:43] Course it is. Of course it is. And, you know, that’s where you get killed in situations like that, I think. So what do you I mean, you have to be pretty well organized. Pretty well armed.

Ernst Roets [01:26:56] Well, the the thing is, there’s no silver bullet. There’s no one thing that we can do to make sure that we’re equipped to withstand that. But if there is a silver bullet, it would be or the closest to it it would be. What I mentioned earlier is well organized communities, communities that have a sense of community that that recognize that you have a sense of responsibility not just towards yourself and your own family, but towards your community, and that you have some form of a communal identity that is under threat, that is being targeted. And you have to protect yourself. You have to fulfill a bunch of functions that the government is not fulfilling, even though you’re paying them to do it. They’re not doing it. So you have to look after your own safety. You need to have a gun. You need to have a bulletproof vest. You need to have. Or if you don’t, in at least a significant amount of people in your in your community must, especially those who are more interested in this type of thing. You need to be well organized. You need to be prepared if something bad happens in your community, if the mob comes, if they set the shopping mall on fire, or if they come for people’s houses, that in a very short time frame, you can get a whole bunch of people mobilized to protect their community. And with these riots in 2021, that was a good case study because some communities were completely unprepared and they were virtually destroyed, and some communities were very well prepared. And when the mobs arrived, there was a bunch of people with guns waiting for them. And I saw.

Tucker [01:28:20] That video of the South Asian communities in type in the big South Asian, big Indians, his community there, and I don’t know if this is representative, but the videos I saw, man, they were not putting up with it at all.

Ernst Roets [01:28:31] Yeah, they were very well armed. Yes.

Tucker [01:28:34] Yeah. It’s like some heroic Indians out there. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:28:37] There was one, I think some guy with something that looked like a minigun on the back of a pickup truck. I don’t know where they got that, but I don’t know. But that’s, that’s an example. It was another.

Tucker [01:28:47] That I, you know, these videos are all out of context. I’m not. Yeah. I don’t know that I read this, but I just assume we have got some brave Indians and yes.

Ernst Roets [01:28:53] Yes I do. We have some brave Indians. We do. But and they were they were other examples. One was a the mob was approaching a town and the people were waiting for them on a bridge. And then they got there. They just couldn’t enter because the people had just cordoned off their own town and their own village or community, and they weren’t able to enter. So we’ve had some case studies of this. It’s South Africa’s a fascinating case study for a lot of things.

Tucker [01:29:17] It certainly is. It certainly is. There’s just a dumb question, a childish question. Why, if I’m the government of South Africa, it’s like, why are you going after productive people? For one thing, the most productive. And that would include the Indians, the Afrikaners, by the way, some of the black African immigrants here, Zimbabweans like these are like are some of the most productive people in America. Why not just live in harmony, actually. So what would it be better for everybody?

Ernst Roets [01:29:49] Of course. Of course it would be better. I think it’s because they have. When they took power in 1994, they explicitly said, we are not a political party. We are not a government in terms of what people think a government should be. We are a liberation movement committed to the promotion of socialism and committed to the promotion of black nationalism. And that’s that’s the idea.

Tucker [01:30:10] I said that 94.

Ernst Roets [01:30:11] Yeah, they even said that before 94. They published.

Tucker [01:30:14] So it’s just I know I’m going back to the same themes. I’m getting older. Sorry, but like, no, but I mean, I actually did know that because as I said, I’ve always been interested and I knew people there. But nobody in the American press mentioned that. Not one.

Ernst Roets [01:30:29] Yeah. There’s a well-known book that was an international bestseller, My Traitor’s Heart, by a guy called Ryan Mullen. It’s sort of his autobiography. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so there’s one section in that book. I know, Ryan, I know the author is a great guy, but in the book he writes.

Tucker [01:30:45] About these in English. I don’t know if he wrote it off originally, but it’s a beautifully written book.

Ernst Roets [01:30:50] It’s very well written, very nice. He speaks like he writes. Oh he does. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, so there’s one part in the book where he talks about picking up the New York Times, and I’m sort of saying this from memory, from reading the book. But broadly speaking, what he says is he picks up the New York Times in, I don’t know, 1992 or something in, in New York or wherever. And there’s two stories next on the same page. The one is about the ANC and Nelson Mandela coming to save South Africa. And then the other story is a somewhat smaller story About a guy being Nicholas in a local community, a guy being viciously attacked and killed. And so he writing that book that what what concerned him was that The New York Times was not able to connect these two stories to each other. Yeah. They didn’t recognize that. It’s part of the same story. It’s presented as two completely different.

Tucker [01:31:40] I think they knew exactly. I think it was very obvious. So I was 25 and 1994 and it was very obvious to me. And I, you know, I don’t think I have any special powers of insight. I think you would have to be lying to yourself or lying to your audience not to acknowledge it. And by the way, it’s 1994. That’s less than 20 years after the cameras took power in Nam Pen in Cambodia.

Ernst Roets [01:32:04] That was while the Rwandan genocide was happening.

Tucker [01:32:07] It was the same years the World War two was later that year. So the same.

Ernst Roets [01:32:10] Month, even the the election at least was.

Tucker [01:32:14] In July.

Ernst Roets [01:32:15] April, may, may, may. Okay. Right.

Tucker [01:32:18] Right. Yeah. Yeah, I remember them both very well and I knew people in both places at the time. But I remember thinking, you know, obviously what happened in Kigali, we were in Rwanda is way worse than anything is happening in South Africa, thank God. But bottom line, when bad people with bad motives stated publicly take power, it’s not good. So like, I don’t know, that’s not hard.

Ernst Roets [01:32:41] Well, there’s a story from Rwanda and what is it I keep mentioning in the same, the same time? I think Linda Melvin wrote a book called Conspiracy to Murder, which is about, I think she lived in Rwanda and she’s a journalist, and she wrote about the what happened and she writes about a meeting. Must have been a party in Washington between American diplomats and government officials from Rwanda in the run up to, I think, to the genocide. And and it was just a big celebration. And everyone was happy because Rwanda was in the process of becoming a democracy. And then afterwards, someone asked one of the Americans, But did you not know what was happening in Rwanda? That they were on the verge of committing genocide? And he said the American diplomats said, yes, we knew. But we were so excited about democracy and Rwanda becoming a democracy. We didn’t want to spoil the mood by confronting them.

Tucker [01:33:34] That sounds like an American diplomat. Yeah. Wow.

Ernst Roets [01:33:37] That’s awesome. So, so that’s very, very alarming. This idea of being so excited about a potential idea that you are not willing to confront the realities that that’s happening or that could potentially unfold.

Tucker [01:33:51] We’re being unwilling to clearly define your terms, like what is democracy, actually?

Ernst Roets [01:33:56] Yeah. Well, that’s I think that’s an underlying.

Tucker [01:33:58] It’s an underlying problem. Yeah. Right. It’s an it’s a problem that’s only surfaced in this country.

Ernst Roets [01:34:03] And I give you an example, I hope you from the South African perspective. So I mentioned the name changes. It’s a big thing in South Africa.

Tucker [01:34:10] I’m sure that’ll fix your problems. Will that bring the electricity and water back north.

Ernst Roets [01:34:13] Obviously. So there’s a town called among them Toti which is on the east coast of South Africa. The main street was named Kingsway. They changed it to Andrews on Duke Street. Now, Andrews Zonda is really only known for one thing. He was a member of the ANC Youth League and I believe it was 1985. He planted a bomb in a shopping center and he killed, I think, five people and injured 40. All of the people who were killed were women and children. That’s the only thing he did. And he was a member of the ANC Youth League. The ANC regards that event as a something that they claim as a an act of heroism. So they named the main street after him and said, there are people in that town who drive to work in a street named after the person who killed their children, and now they would say that they need to do these name changes to make sure that they get rid of offensive names, offensive names, or Afrikaans names or names linked to South Africa’s past. And so I was at a again I summit with this was discussed and I mentioned this, I said, so you say that in Pretoria, Church Street is an offensive name and has to be changed in a man’s name. Toti. You changed Kingsway to Andrew Zondi and I tell the story and I said, so who decides if it’s if it’s offensive or not? And the guy said, oh, well that’s easy. The majority decides. And so but it’s not even the majority, it’s just the government. The government decides because they believe they are the majority. So we have these extremely offensive things happening under the banner of, well, they’re murderous.

Tucker [01:35:43] I mean, I see again, I just yeah, I think it’s the picture is really, really clear. You know, it’s it couldn’t be clearer. Yeah.

Ernst Roets [01:35:53] Yeah. Absolutely.

Tucker [01:35:54] How do you is you’re staying.

Ernst Roets [01:35:56] Yeah. No definitely. Yeah. We’ll stay.

Tucker [01:35:59] You guys must love your country.

Ernst Roets [01:36:00] Yeah, we really do. I mean, in South Africa, everyone who’s been to South Africa would say it’s an incredibly beautiful country and it truly is. And it’s a country that, unfortunately, has suffered so much under this current government and has suffered so much in the past. One of our Afrikaans philosophers, a man named in a fun way, Clough wrote. I think in the 1930s or something that you love AI people. Not so much for the accomplishments as for the hardships that they’ve had to endure.

Tucker [01:36:28] That’s right.

Ernst Roets [01:36:29] And and I think that’s true for South Africa. South Africa has endured many hardships and also for our people. The Afrikaner people, as with many other people all over the world, have endured many hardships. And it’s through these hardships and remaining, maintaining our sense of identity that we really love our history and our tradition.

Tucker [01:36:47] And, well, you came in the first place because you were an oppressed minority, correct? Yep. I know the French did. Yes.

Ernst Roets [01:36:52] The French, you know, it’s. Yes. Yes, it was the fleeing, the religious wars.

Tucker [01:36:56] Of course they were getting killed.

Ernst Roets [01:36:57] Yes. In big numbers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s that’s how that’s, that’s part of our origin story.

Tucker [01:37:02] How we what’s also actually true. Yeah. Part of history. I mean, it’s not a myth. It’s real.

Ernst Roets [01:37:07] Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

Tucker [01:37:08] Yeah. So do you think? I don’t know what the resolution will be? And I’m certainly rooting for all South Africans of every color, but fervently. But I gotta think that being able to say certain obvious truths out loud helps. Yes. Do you think.

Ernst Roets [01:37:29] It. Well, the problem is, if you do that, you really you get bashed quite aggressively and.

Tucker [01:37:35] Yeah. But like compared to what?

Ernst Roets [01:37:37] Yeah. No, they just said.

Tucker [01:37:38] We’re taking your land because your skin color.

Ernst Roets [01:37:39] The alternative is worse. It’s just living the lie. It’s, it’s it’s much worse than getting bashed for for telling the truth. Can I, can I tell you a quick story, a quick reference about courage?

Tucker [01:37:50] Of course.

Ernst Roets [01:37:51] So it’s somewhat philosophical, but I’ll make it practical. So Odysseus is on his way back from the Trojan War and and he has all these hardships, and he’s trying to get home, and he gets told that the only way for him to get home is to face Skyler and Charybdis. Skyler is this six headed sea monster, and Charybdis is a monstrous whirlpool that swallows ships whole, and the only way for him to get home is he has to navigate through these two monsters, which he eventually does. He decides it’s better for him to move to sail his ship closer to the monster sea monster than the whirlpool, and a whole lot of his people die, but he reaches his destination. And so Aristotle writes about this in the Nicomachean Ethics, and he talks about when he talks about the golden mean. And he says any virtue is about finding the balance between having excess of it and having a deficiency of it. And and so this goes to courage. And courage is a good example. If you have excess courage, you become reckless. Yes. And if you have a deficiency, then you are a coward. And so the point of having courage is finding the balance between cowardice and recklessness. And what’s great about the story of Odysseus is Odysseus discovers that he cannot simply go exactly in the middle between the two He has to be closer to the one threat than to the other, because if he goes too close to the whirlpool, these all ship gets swallowed up. And so the pointy end. Aristotle sees this as well. It’s not to find the exact middle point, it’s to find the appropriate balance between the two extremes. And so the one extreme is recklessness, and the other extreme is his cowardice. And I honestly think in the situation we are in, it’s better to on the side of being too bold than to on the side of having not enough courage or trying to find some form of solution through appeasement. And and so we make mistakes in the process. And, and you know, sometimes you say something wrong or you do something wrong, but, but I’m very much convinced that if we if, if we, if we’re on this course and we try to pursue what we are trying to pursue, rather on the side of having too much boldness and too much courage and facing the consequences, then having to face the consequences of having a lack of of courage.

Tucker [01:40:03] I love that, I got to say, in a lifetime of travel. The two. If I could just generalize the two most impressive groups I meet everywhere my whole life around the world, both groups living in exile in large numbers are the South Africans and the Lebanese are.

Ernst Roets [01:40:20] Really?

Tucker [01:40:21] Yes, yes. I’ve never met one of either group I didn’t like and didn’t admire. I don’t think I’ve met one in either group, and the thing that they have in common is they live in beautiful, volatile countries that they really love, but they’re very hard to live in. Yes. And so they’re they’re caught between that tension, you know, cowardice and recklessness. And they’re making that calculation every single day. And they’re they’re living so thoughtfully and so purposefully and in such a, I don’t know, just a admirable, noble way. I’ve noticed that.

Ernst Roets [01:40:49] Oh, I appreciate the comment of it.

Tucker [01:40:52] Let’s try. Right. Just an observation, but I’ve thought about it many times. Last question what where can and people who have made it this far into the interview and are interested in what’s happening in your country and happening to to your group. How can they follow it? How can they be helpful? How can they learn more and be supportive?

Ernst Roets [01:41:13] Well, I think there are many ways. The one way is just to follow what’s happening in South Africa and speak about it. Yes, because we’ve had this incredible barrage of of communications coming, just telling us again how wrong we are. You know, this narrative is this side. Geist in a certain sense, it’s it’s really like a monster that you have to fight this, you know, that you’re not allowed to say, speak certain truths, even though the truths are self-evident. So I think one thing is, if people just can help spread the message, help take some interest in South Africa, because what’s happening in South Africa is also of interest to the rest of the world.

Tucker [01:41:47] I think it.

Ernst Roets [01:41:47] Is in many ways, South Africa is the future of the Western.

Tucker [01:41:49] World.

Ernst Roets [01:41:50] I know in terms of the problem and the solution, I think. So so that’s one. And then the other is there really are some institutions in South Africa who are really focused on on building community based solutions. And I think if people can can identify these institutions and support these institutions, it really would help. And I think in terms of the US government, if the US government is willing to do something as it seems that they are, I think the most important thing that they could do is a combination of pressuring the South African government from away from these destructive policies, but also supporting communities, local communities or minority communities or nations, you should say, who are committed to finding some form of self-determination.

Tucker [01:42:34] Amen. Well, Godspeed. I hope to see you again. I hope you’ll come back.

Ernst Roets [01:42:39] I thank you, I will, I hope so, too. And and I have to thank you for not just for this interview, but also for the the focus you’ve been putting on South Africa in the past.

Tucker [01:42:46] It was just so it’s just so interesting and it reveals so much about us. I’m American and it reveals a lot about our leadership class. And I think it’s important to say it.

Ernst Roets [01:42:55] Yeah. Well, thank you very much.

Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System

Looking at America’s Healthcare system and its effectiveness in helping people with chronic disease, there is little reason to feel positive about it nor to be hopeful that serious reforms will be implemented any time soon. RFK Jr. who was recently sworn in as the 26th Secretary of Health and Human Services, is likely to be roadblocked in his efforts to make America a healthier country.

The medical industrial complex realizes that a healthier nation not as dependent upon medical doctors nor pharmaceutical drugs will significantly reduce its monetary profits. No matter what common sense reforms RFK Jr. proposes, it will likely be frowned upon and publicly resisted by multiple medical associations and academies. The health of patients plays little importance when huge profits are at stake, and one must always remember that modern medicine is a business first and foremost. Health care in America is enormously costly because it’s designed to be that way. Once you understand this, you’re on your way to be liberated from it.

Doctors Have Earned the Lack of Trust They Receive

Dr. Suneel Dhand, a board-certified physician specializing in internal medicine and metabolic health, has declared that it’s not merely the system that’s broken, but “large numbers of practicing doctors, maybe even the majority, their minds are completely broken as well . . . What I mean by this is that the way doctors have been trained to think, the fact that most doctors are complete followers, they lack critical thinking skills, and they certainly lack the courage to step out of line and ask questions when they need to” (YouTube, Dr. Suneel Dhand, ‘Doctors Minds are Broken: Big Hurdle for RFK & MAGA’).

If one wants to witness just how cowardly the greater number of doctors are, simply consider how almost all of them fell in line like obedient soldiers during the Covid pandemic. Any physician who deviated from the authorized message given on high or who even mildly questioned the safety or effectiveness of the Covid vaccine, became anathema to the medical establishment. Medical licenses were immediately threatened at the slightest deviation from the Covid narrative.

Even when baseless public rules were mandated such as the six-foot rule to ward off infection – which Dr. Fauci had to admit was not based on any data – doctors were still required to go along with it. They did so gladly. When Ivermectin had proven to be an effective treatment against the Covid virus, doctors were urged to dismiss it as mere ‘horse medicine.’ And they did so with little hesitation. Even though there was mounting evidence that the Covid vaccine increased the risk of myocarditis, it was mostly downplayed by the authorities. Only later, when so many young athletes had experienced serious heart complications or dying on the field of play, were there serious investigations as to the possible link between the vaccine and myocarditis.

Thus, doctors in the U.S. had largely discredited themselves among much of the American people by taking part in the Covid scam and doing it with little resistance to the powers-that-be. They had proven what compliant sheep they truly are at their core, and how unwilling they were to adhere to the ‘science’ despite their protests to the contrary.

Like their leader, Anthony Fauci, these same doctors contributed to one of the greatest mass deceptions in human history. Not only was the ‘vaccine’ not given the same rigorous testing standards and allotment of time afforded to other vaccines, but even when it had proven to be only mildly effective at best and often harmful to millions of people, there was no urgency to remove it from the market. The enormous profits that the mRNA vaccine brought to its pharmaceutical manufacturers was too great to resist. Information that challenged the vaccine’s effectiveness was either obfuscated or denied outright. The mainstream media was boldly complicit in all of it too as they dismissed as ‘crazy,’ ‘anti-vaxxer,’ or a ‘science denier’ anyone who refused to take the ‘clot shot.’ The disastrous fallout of the Covid tyranny has only recently started to come out, and I hope there will be hell to pay for those who took a major role in promoting it.

The good news in all of this is how many Americans, including citizens from all around the world, became disillusioned with doctors in general and in the entire Healthcare system. The Covid ‘plandemic’ had removed the scales from the eyes of many people who once could only view doctors as virtually angelic. All of this lack of trust toward doctors did not arise in a vacuum but is something that doctors as entrenched supporters of the medical establishment did to themselves. They have no one to blame, but their own arrogance and closed minds.

Doctors Are Unable to Effectively Treat Chronic Disease

Perhaps the major reason why so many doctors are incapable to treating chronic disease is because their philosophical and medical starting point is all wrong. In this sense, doctors are taught to treat symptoms but fail to consider the whole person. They reject a wholistic approach — that is, treating the whole person, recognizing that the human body is interconnected, that symptoms are almost always due to other factors in the body that may not appear at first to have any connection, and that almost the entirety of chronic disease is related to diet which most doctors are completely uninformed of.

If one’s diet or nutrition, then, plays a major role in chronic disease, why do so many doctors know little about the subject? Why are medical students given only one or two classes on nutrition if diet plays such a central role in chronic disease? The answer lies in recognizing that curing chronic disease through diet is not particularly lucrative. What need is there for expensive pharmaceutical pills when one can self-heal and resolve their ailments by simply eating nutrient dense food, eliminating foods that create inflammation in the body, practicing intermittent fasting and exercising regularly?

A physician who actually heals chronic disease, then, does not generate the sort of revenue desired by large pharmaceutical corporations. There are no life-long prescriptions for those who recover from their ailments. Long-term customers dependent on the medical industrial complex are not produced by doctors who pursue a more wholistic approach to medicine, one that recognizes the important role of nutrition and in eschewing the standard American diet with all of its artery-clogging chemicals and substances.

This approach of treating the whole person and not just focusing on symptoms does not comport well with a model of medical care that’s built around pharmaceutical drugs which most physicians adhere to since first learning it in medical school. Thus, focusing only on symptoms has proven to be a very lucrative approach to treating patients since it invites a plethora of costly drugs to be administered as remedies.

If a patient is not feeling well, give him a pill. If that same pill is giving the patient negative side effects, give him another pill to combat the side effects of the previous pill. And on it goes as more prescriptions are doled out and as the patient slowly morphs into a walking pill box! This is what many doctors think is good medical practice though almost all of them would deny that they are pill pushers.

Strange as it may sound, the modern Healthcare system shares some striking similarities to the institutional prison system. The prison system may provide incarceration for criminals, but it does a lousy job of rehabilitating those same criminals or preventing crime. Our Healthcare system, likewise, may have an almost endless number of procedures and protocols to deal with illness, but it doesn’t provide health in any meaningful way. Is it any wonder why doctors either never or rarely speak of healing their patients? This sort of language is not used because a good many physicians don’t see themselves as ‘healers,’ but as persons trained to manage pain or manage the health of their patients. The modern Healthcare system for the most part produces forever patients who, in turn, are forever wed to pharmaceutical drugs which are often highly toxic and create debilitating side effects.

Dr. William Davis, an author and cardiologist, has declared that “Health care is no more about healing than gambling on horse races is about preparing for retirement. In the doctor’s mind, handing you a prescription for insulin may be her version of ‘healing,’ but you know better: There is no healing that can come from handing out pharmaceutical Band-Aids while ignoring the cause of a health problem. Don’t bet on horses to grow your retirement account; don’t count on doctors for healing” (Undoctored: Why Health Care Has Failed You and How You Can Become Smarter Than Your Doctor [Rodale Books, 2017], p.28).

The modern doctor, then, helps patients to cope or manage their ailments and to reduce its effects through pharmaceutical pills as opposed to getting to the root cause of their pain and healing it altogether. This is how they are trained, and it’s rare indeed to find a doctor who seriously inquires as to what their patients eat on a daily basis, including ways to overcome their diseases without the use of costly drugs.

All of this stands in stark contrast to doctors who are healers.

Doctors who are healers counsel their patients on diet and correct common nutritional deficiencies. Doctors who are healers advise their patients with arthritis and joint pain on how to reduce inflammation in the body through nutrition. Doctors who are healers advise their patients with chronic kidney disease to totally eliminate sugar and processed carbohydrates from their diet. Doctors who are healers advise their patients with dementia or Alzheimer’s to end all consumption of refined sugars, alcohol, grains or anything that is metabolized as sugar in the body. Doctors who heal are knowledgeable of the importance and efficacy of certain nutritional supplements that aid in recovery.

Doctors who heal may not necessarily end all pharmaceutical drugs for their patients because they recognize that, at times, it may prove beneficial. But they are not so quick to place their patients on the pharmaceutical Ferris wheel when other options are readily available, especially those based on nutrition and lifestyle.

Undoctor Yourself

Americans must learn to undoctor themselves, to completely avoid becoming dependent on an increasingly costly and ineffective Healthcare system. The only way this is going to happen is by arming oneself with knowledge about health, nutrition, quality supplements, and learning to become their own advocates when it comes to what medicines and what medical treatments they will accept. To rely blindly on what a physician recommends without doing one’s own research is the way of the foolhardy. Many patients only realize this when it’s too late.

A person who is undoctored recognizes that doctors have a legitimate place, but it’s a limited one. Generally, doctors are for treating serious injuries to one’s limb, major abrasions and cuts, allergic reactions, a broken arm or leg, traffic collision injuries, victims of third-degree burns, knee replacements, spinal injuries, the removal of cancerous tumors, brain surgery, the replacement of heart valves, and these kinds of things which in large part they perform very well. I know this is a limited description of the many things that doctors do, but I hope the reader understands my point.

People run to doctors to fix every little ache or discomfort they might have with little awareness that most of it is attributable to their poor diets and can be reversed by simply changing the way they eat. There is no need for doctors under these circumstances, and there are a sufficient number of books, articles, videos and podcasts available on the internet to educate people suffering from all sorts of diseases and autoimmune issues. Visiting the doctor’s office, then, is supposed to be something that is rare.

Many doctors, as one might expect, may feel threatened by persons who are undoctored, especially if the concept spreads among more Americans. They want us forever dependent on their opinions, their expertise and their broken system. Yet, the less people are dependent on their authority and become advocates for themselves, the less money will go into the coffers of the modern Healthcare system and the less will people stand in awe of them simply because they have a medical degree.

It goes without saying that today’s doctors don’t have quite the reputation they once had in America, and this is largely due to a host of factors, much of it their complacency and unwillingness to resist the massive levels of greed inherent in most medical institutions which has made health care unaffordable for the greater number of Americans. The doctors have worked hand-in-hand with these same greedy institutions, and widespread corruption runs rampant within the industry (insurance companies included). The average doctor may just be a cog in the machine, but they are far from innocent.

Robert Yoho, a retired medical doctor, bewails just how convoluted and ripe for corruption today’s Healthcare system has become: “The insurance system was conceived in good faith to supply vital care. But the gargantuan fountain of tax and insurance loot cannot be monitored. Third-party payment combined with free-market profits encourages overuse of anything a provider can stick a bill on. Everyone is compensated by piecemeal and submits separate, competing charges, resulting in a frenzy of exaggerated and fraudulent invoices. The system allows payment for any covered medical treatment, so there is no upper limit on the total. Since severe illnesses justify more reimbursement, hospitals and doctors do unnecessary lab tests and x-rays under the pretext that they suspect dangerous conditions. These create more bills and support invoices for extensive evaluations. Complicated, expensive treatments follow, which doctors order even if they are ineffective or damagingAgatha Christie said, ‘When large sums of money are involved, it is advisable to trust nobody.’ She might have added, ‘Not even your doctor or hospital’” (Butchered by “Healthcare”: What to do About Doctors, Big Pharma, and Corrupt Government Ruining Your Health and Medical Care [Self-published, 2020], pp. 21-22).

Doctors Are Unable to Effectively Treat Heart Disease

The American Heart Association tells us that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing more than 655,000 Americans each year. The major culprit in the spread of heart disease, according to doctors and today’s diet dictocrats, is saturated fat which clogs the arteries and triggers heart attacks.

The so-called ‘Lipid Hypothesis’ since the time of its founder, Ancel Keys, has been the prevailing dogma among doctors and cardiologists. They want us off eggs, bacon, fatty red meat, real butter or anything that will increase cholesterol in the body and to consume lots of grains, cereals, vegetables, fruits and high carbohydrate foods. Instead of using butter, tallow or pork fat in our food, the ‘experts’ want us to use seed oils and margarine. Every stripe of low-calorie snack, fat-free condiment, soybean oil spread, and sauce was pushed upon us to help us avoid the dangers of cholesterol.

Americans largely followed their advice enshrined in the Food Pyramid of the 1970s and it wasn’t long before obesity rates skyrocketed. Everyone thought they were both smart and healthy because they avoided saturated fat and consumed bran muffins, bagels, oats, pasta, bread and cereal that was as tasteless as twigs. Chronic disease also increased significantly in the U.S. The nutritional advice spewing from our government proved disastrous, and it has become patently obvious.

Few Americans at the time were aware that the sugar industry sought to bribe and manipulate university authorities and medical researchers to blame the increasing rates of heart disease on saturated fat rather than refined sugars, processed carbs or grains which is where the blame rightly belongs.

In a 2016 article published in NPR, this very subject matter was investigated. The author concluded that the food companies played a definite role in downplaying sugar as the major driver of obesity and in influencing published studies that might be critical of sugary drinks: “Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues. In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola’s cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not” (‘50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to Point Blame at Fat,’ by Camila Domonoske, 9/13/2016).

Even though there were a few published studies throughout the 1970s and 80s that challenged the ‘Heart-Diet’ theory, they were largely ignored by the medical schools which continued to demonize saturated fat and cholesterol. Even now, with the publication of so many books debunking the notion that saturated fat is unhealthy – such as the 2007 book by Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories, which rocked the nutritional world at the time of its release – doctors still continue to lecture their patients about saturated fat and cholesterol. The doctors are ignorant either because they’re not accustomed to challenging their belief system, or they’re lazy and don’t care, or they’re afraid to challenge the medical system with contrarian ideas and protocols that might jeopardize their professional standing.

Whatever the case may be, there has been an ongoing paradigm shift among health researchers on the matter of cholesterol. The older belief that LDL (low-density lipoprotein) is the ‘bad cholesterol’ may not be based on good science. The emerging way of viewing cholesterol among some is that high LDL, by itself, is not necessarily an indicator of poor health so long as other factors are considered, such as low Triglyceride levels and high HDL (high-density lipoprotein).

One’s Triglycerides and HDL levels, then, are much better indicators of one’s health, including one’s A1C numbers. In fact, there are many people who for genetic reasons have very elevated LDL numbers and yet are fit and healthy (such as those known as ‘lean mass hyper-responders’). Blaming cholesterol for clogged arteries, as many physicians do, is like blaming firemen at the scene of a house fire for starting the fire! Cholesterol in the arteries is present for the purpose of healing the arteries and reducing inflammation – the very inflammation that’s likely caused by refined sugars, processed carbohydrates and seed oils. Thus, cholesterol is immensely beneficial to the human body and the brain itself is comprised mostly of cholesterol.

Some recent studies, in fact, found that higher levels of cholesterol, specifically LDL, have been associated with longer life among elderly persons: “A recent long-term study from Sweden, using data from the AMORIS cohort, has provided valuable research on cholesterol, and somewhat surprisingly shows a correlation between higher cholesterol levels and increased longevity. The longevity study (Murata et al PMID: 37726432) looked at the blood work data of 45,000 people over a 35-year period. Taking regular blood samples and measuring the biomarkers (glucose, cholesterol, iron, creatinine, etc.) the researchers could identify what factors were associated for those reaching 100 years or more. They found that high cholesterol is associated long life. The new data appears to contradict what we have learnt, that high cholesterol is bad. Right? Wrong. When one reads past the headlines and the study’s abstract, the discussion of the results and actual conclusion show otherwise” (The Whole Earth Practice, ‘Cholesterol & Longevity: Is High Cholesterol Protective? The Swedish AMORIS Cohort Results,’ by Alastair Hunt, 10/5/2023).

Contrary to what most doctors think, it appears that older people may need more, not less, cholesterol in their bodies, especially when one considers the protective and beneficial role it plays in the body.

Despite these truths, the medical industrial complex is unlikely to jettison their cholesterol-is-bad view of heart disease any time soon because statin sales in the U.S. exceeds 20 billion dollars annually. There’s just too much money to be made in selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, and this again is why it’s important to remember that modern Healthcare is a business first and foremost.

Let’s also not forget that statin usage brings a lot of other health complications and distressing side effects. Many patients have reported memory loss, muscle aches, fatigue, nausea, confusion, liver problems, constipation and some have even experienced an increase in their blood sugar levels.

Granted, not every patient on a statin regimen experiences these symptoms. However, I think it’s fairly common, more so than what the medical establishment or statin manufacturers estimate which is approximately 10% of patients who use cholesterol-lowering drugs. I have no data to refute the 10% estimation, yet I know that when so much revenue in the billions is at stake, there is always a strong temptation to downplay or fudge the numbers so that any widespread alarm about statin usage is suppressed.

In addition to the enormous sums of revenue that prescribing statins brings, let’s not forget the boatloads of money that heart surgeries, installing stints and pacemakers secures for the medical system. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m thankful that these cardiologists exist and that such miraculous technology is available. Yet, it’s still important to ask: If doctors actually warned their patients about refined sugars, worried less about saturated fat, promoted nutrient dense nutrition, and sought to treat their patients from a wholistic and functional medicine approach, would we not witness over time a major reduction among Americans in pharmaceutical usage, less dependency upon doctors, and a significant decrease in heart surgeries?

And perhaps that’s precisely why today’s medical system is so resistant to the ideas presented in this article?

Doctors Are Unable to Effectively Treat Type-2 Diabetes

Treating Type-2 diabetes is another industry that has proven to be extremely lucrative for today’s medical industrial complex. The amazing thing about it all is that Type-2 diabetes can be reversed – that is, one can actually be healed from diabetes! Talking to the average doctor, you probably wouldn’t think so. They rarely, if ever, mention it to their patients and perhaps even they don’t know. It seems to be a secret they keep to themselves, and I can imagine why when one realizes that the diabetes industry’s projected profits for 2025 will reach 26.28 billion dollars. Oh sure, there’s the occasional physician who might mention that a low carbohydrate diet may prevent the need for life-long insulin injections. But there seems to be very few of them.

In fact, I’ve talked to many diabetics over the years, and none of them from what I could recall ever mentioned getting off their insulin medication or seemed aware that their condition could be reversed by diet alone. Most of them saw it as a life-long problem that would forever require medication, including the real possibility that their condition would only worsen over time.

But as the late Sally Hallberg (an obesity doctor) in her TEDx Talk from 2016 said, “reversing Type-2 diabetes starts by ignoring the guidelines that patients are given.” That’s because the guidelines often contribute to and even exacerbate diabetes. The average diabetic, for instance, is urged to consume 40-65 grams of carbs per day, plus whatever carbohydrate snacks they consume as well. Thus, they are encouraged to eat the very foods that cause diabetes in the first place! Can you think of anything more ass-backwards than this sort of advice?

Diabetics are often told by their doctors to ‘go easy’ on the carbohydrates such as bread and pasta; to consume it in ‘moderation.’ Otherwise, they are free to eat what they wish so long as they monitor their insulin levels and not ‘go crazy’ on the sweets. This is precisely what many diabetics have told me over the years. But such recommendations are as wrong-headed as a physician telling a lung cancer patient that he can smoke so long as he smokes in ‘moderation’ and doesn’t get too carried away.

What kind of doctors are these? What kind of medical system is this that promotes such asinine guidelines for their patients? I can tell you. It’s the kind of medical system that has as its highest priority the almighty dollar. Those who think that highly educated and highly trained medical professionals wouldn’t do such a thing, particularly when they are bound to the Hippocratic Oath, are naive as to the true nature of humans. People will engage in all sorts of treason, violent crimes and personal betrayal against others to get ahead financially and doctors are not immune to the human condition.

There’s also little motivation among today’s doctors to urge their patients to go on a low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diet when there is so much profit in Metformin prescriptions (a glucose lowering drug). Currently, sales of Metformin are about 4.17 billion each year. The global Metformin market, however, is projected by 2030 to reach over 6 billion dollars annually. In the U.S., all glucose-lowering drug sales are estimated at 57.6 billion dollars per year.

Again, follow the money. And learn to be wary of doctors and the system they’re a part of. This is your life. This is your health. Learn to be your own advocate, and don’t allow any physician to intimidate you because you ask questions, employ critical thinking skills and refuse to bow to the golden calf of today’s medical industrial complex.

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Triumph of the Villains: Marcus, Memes and Talking Tolkien

A saint I ain’t. But I have competed for a saint. At one of my childhood schools, the pupils were divided into groups, or houses, named after the saints who wrote the Gospels. There was Mattheus House, Marcus House, Lucas House and Johannes House. All of them had a Head of House appointed from pupils in their final year before university. I was in Marcus House and one year our Head of House was a tall, charismatic and athletic youth whom I’ll call Will. With a typically alpha mixture of charm, authority and good example, Will persuaded the usually underperforming members of Marcus to train hard for the annual Sports Day. Thanks to him, we won the Sports Day easily over Johannes, who were traditionally much stronger at sport.

Toxic Trump and Malevolent MAGA

We won so easily, in fact, that the following year I confidently expected us to win the Sports Day again. Yes, Will had gone off to university and his replacement as Head of House wasn’t a charismatic alpha, but surely the momentum of the previous year would carry us to victory again. It didn’t. Marcus lost to Johannes. And badly. It was one of my first lessons in the importance of leadership and individual will. And I’ve been thinking of those two Sports Days ever since the defeat of beautiful brown Kamala Harris in the US presidential election. Why have leftists not been throwing big tantrums over the re-election of Despicable Donald? They’ve witnessed a Triumph of the Villains — Toxic Trump and his malevolent MAGA movement — and yet they’ve not been raging and rioting as they did during his first term.

Why not? Is it simply that they’re demoralized and “exhausted,” too traumatized by Trump’s triumph to fight the foulness of fascism on behalf of the helpless undocumented migrants and transwomen whom MAGA are already torturing? I don’t think so. Instead, it feels to me as though some powerful guiding mind has deserted the left, has declined to organize and animate the masked legions of Antifa, to pour willpower and funding into riots and days of rage. That’s why I’ve been thinking of those two starkly contrasting Sports Days at my old school, one with Will and one without, one easily won and the other badly lost. But I’ve not just been thinking of sports: I’ve been thinking of Sauron. He’s the titular villain of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, a hideously powerful necromancer with a will of adamant and overwhelming military might. Yet he’s defeated in the end not by a fellow wizard or a mighty warrior, but by two Hobbits, Frodo and Sam, simple members of a despised and dwarvish race from a far-away land with no army and no tradition of magic. That’s one of Tolkien’s central themes: how the mighty can be brought low by the minute. And this is how Tolkien describes what happens when Sauron’s will of adamant deserts his undefeatable armies:

But the Nazgûl turned and fled, and vanished into Mordor’s shadows, hearing a sudden terrible call out of the Dark Tower; and even at that moment all the hosts of Mordor trembled, doubt clutched their hearts, their laughter failed, their hands shook and their limbs were loosed. The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid. …

“The realm of Sauron is ended!” said Gandalf. “The Ring-bearer has fulfilled his Quest.” And as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that, black against the pall of cloud, there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell.

The Captains bowed their heads; and when they looked up again, behold! their enemies were flying and the power of Mordor was scattering like dust in the wind. As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope. (The Return of the King [1955], chapter 4)

That ant-hill simile is an echo of ancient Homer in Tolkien’s twentieth-century epic. And Tolkien’s simile reminds me of leftists since Trump’s election. They too are “witless and purposeless,” with doubt clutching their hearts and their laughter failing. They’re not raging and rioting, but retiring from combat. And I think it’s because, like the armies of Sauron, they’re minions, not masters. It wasn’t their own will that directed them in their war on the West, but the will of others. I suggested in my article “Piranha Patel” that the willful others are Jews. Since the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023 and noisy pro-Palestinian marches in cities like New York, London and Paris, some important Jews have decided that Jews need to end their traditional support for non-White immigration and for anti-White ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).

The left is bereft

Deprived of Jewish willpower, brains, and funding, the left is bereft. Leftists are NPCs (Non-Player Characters) who can’t act and organize on their own. Jews played the role of Sauron for the leftist armies waging war on Truth, Beauty and Goodness. And now Sauron has gone: Jews have decided that rioting and raging against Trump wouldn’t be good for Jews. That’s what it feels like to me. And that’s why I’ve been thinking of Sports Days and that Sauronic simile in Lord of the Rings. I might be wrong about the main cause of the left’s passivity, but I’m not wrong to think about Lord of the Rings. It’s always a good time to be inspired by Tolkien and his stirring stories of Truth, Beauty and Goodness at war with Lies, Ugliness and Evil. And that brings me to one of the best accounts I’ve ever come across on Twitter: The Daily Gondor. If you’re not familiar with Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, you’ll be baffled by it. However, if you are familiar, it will be one of the funniest and cleverest things you’ll ever read.

Gríma in glasses at The Daily Gondor, “One newspaper to rule them all!”

The Daily Gondor purports to be a truth-telling, toxicity-battling media-feed for the inhabitants of Tolkien’s Middle-earth. It’s overseen by Gríma Wormtongue, the wise and faithful advisor to King Théoden of Rohan. That’s how Wormtongue wants to be seen, anyway. In reality, he’s a liar and a traitor, a sly spinner of word-webs who paralyzes Théoden’s will, rendering him helpless to govern and defend his own kingdom. Wormtongue turns black into white, pretends that good is evil and evil good. And now he’s editing the Daily Gondor. In other words, the Daily Gondor (DG) is a parody of the Guardian, New York Times and other leftist media, who all spin word-webs in the service of lies, ugliness and evil. For example, those real newspapers all use a sacralizing capital letter for “Black” just as the DG and sister-outlets like Barad-dûrFeed (sic) use a sacralizing capital letter for “Orc” (orcs are the ugly and evil warriors of Sauron and Barad-dûr is the name of Sauron’s fortress in the grim realm of Mordor). The real leftist media minimize the murder, rape and theft committed by Blacks and other non-Whites just as the DG minimizes the decapitation, cannibalism and looting of Orcs. And where the real leftist media incessantly condemn racism and transphobia, the DG incessantly condemns “orcophobia,” the irrational fear of Orcs and their vibrant culinary and cultural habits. Here are some typical headlines from the Daily Gondor and Barad-dûrFeed:

  • Violence caused by Orcs and Goblins never makes it to your newsfeeds simply because it doesn’t exist.
  • It’s impossible to have a modern, civilized society without Orcs and cannibalism is a small price to pay.
  • Yes, Orcs Want to Slaughter and Enslave Us All, but If We Oppose Their Freedom, Then We’re Just As Bad.
  • I fed my children to Goblins and have never been happier.
  • Orcs Catapulted Severed Heads Over the Walls and My Daughter Was Horrified. Am I Raising an Orcophobe?
  • Elves aren’t real, recent research to curb the elf-right suggests.
  • Truth and Beauty are elf-centric concepts.
  • People are happier when besieged by orcs or eaten alive, says happiness expert.
  • We keep hearing about “legitimate concerns” over Mondor’s invasion. There are none.

That last headline is a parody of the Guardian’s now infamous article: “We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none.” But the DG does more than just parody the Guardian and other leftist media: it also points at the disproportionate and controlling role of Jews in leftism and the war on Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Jews have names like Goldsmith, Goldberg and Rubinstein (the latter two names mean “Gold-mountain” and “Ruby-stone” in German). Journalists for the DG and BDF have names like Gobli Mithrilsmith, Thogrun Mithrilgroper, Rothli Jewelrubber and Gambi Jewelsqueezer (mithril is Middle-earth’s most precious metal). And look at this headline: “Rivendell politician SACKED after suggesting 8 out of 9 major Palintírí outlets are controlled by just 3 dwarven clans.” The journalist for that article is one Shuldur Goldstonemountain, who writes of how “in a reckless display of dangerous noticing the official, whose name will soon be erased and forgotten, hurt Rivendell’s reputation and standing.”

That’s a clever joke about Jewish dominance in the media and the way Jews condemn and cancel those who discuss that dominance. The Daily Gondor is wise, witty and White-friendly. It’s written by a true Tolkien fan and I can heartily recommend it to all other true Tolkien fans.

Samples of The Daily Gondor

 

 

 

 

A Call for Uncompromising Intolerance: Transgenderism and So-Called Gender Affirming Care Must Be Banned

A Call for Uncompromising Intolerance – by Richard Parker

But what ends when the symbols shatter? A depiction of male and female anatomies shattering the transgender symbol. By destroying that symbol and what it stands for, one affirms humanity and the mammalian essence.

A brief assessment of both the transgender menace and the more-or-less mainstream voices speaking out against it reveals a fatal flaw in the opposition to this civilization-destroying madness. The arguments against transgenderism, at least as they have been expressed heretofore, concede far too much ground to the transgender contagion, limiting discourse to two central objections: that demands to open women’s spaces, namely women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, spas, as well as women’s athletics be open to men (provided they ‘identify’ as female) are unacceptable, and that preying on children and minors, encouraging them and coaxing them into the transgender delirium must stop.  In this way few if any mainstream critics of transgenderism categorically oppose so-called “gender affirming care,” provided it is not rendered to minors. Nor have they expressed categorical opposition to promoting or propagating transgender ideology to the public at large, but limit their objection to transgender lunacy being advocated to minors.

This characterization applies to a number of well-known conservative and moderate pundits, demonstrating how limited in scope mainstream opposition to transgenderism has been. “Billboard Chris” always qualifies his opposition to so-called gender-affirming care as it relates to minors.  While he correctly states minors do not have the reasoning ability or maturity to make such a decision, he fails to take that extra step to achieve a more enlightened view of uncompromising intolerance. Peter Boghossian has repeatedly stated that he has no opposition whatsoever to “consenting” adults deciding that they are transgender or subjecting themselves to any number of surgeries that help these deluded individuals think they are something they are not.  At the very outset of the infamous appearance of Abigail Shrier on the Joe Rogan podcast (video edition of which had been removed but is now available again), both Rogan and Shrier claim that the discussion does not concern “transgender adults,” and that neither are opposed to adults choosing to consider themselves transgender or to undergo any battery of these procedures. Joe Rogan insisted yet again that adults can do whatever they please with their bodies during a recent appearance by Matt Walsh.  All of this is a grave error.

The problem with entertaining this “moderate, temperate” approach is that it concedes that anyone, even if an adult, should be allowed to make such a decision. Society generally does not allow people to mutilate themselves.  We do not let deluded, crazy people who think they are intrinsically crippled to have their limbs amputated. Nor does society let alcoholics or drug addicts indulge their addictions to the point of self-destruction, at least not in theory.  So it must be with so-called “gender affirming care,” which, as will soon be demonstrated, offers only a very poor counterfeit of the sex coveted, reducing those so deluded to a horrible, grotesque abomination.  As this recent review of When Harry Became Sally attests, Ryan T. Anderson correctly discerns that men cannot become women and vice versa, and that sex is an immutable characteristic that one is born as, a characteristic that begins at conception. However, much like Billboard Chris, this author limits opposition to encouraging children and minors to transition, as well as offering so-called “gender affirming care” by way of mastectomies of adolescent girls and puberty blockers for both sexes.

This objection to transgenderism as it relates to minors is coupled with opposition to demands for access to women’s spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s athletics, and so on). Anderson states outside of those contexts transgender people “must be treated with dignity and respect” and is even against denial of service by schools or establishments open to the public. (197) Nowhere does he express opposition to adults indulging in transgender lunacy, nor does he condemn so-called “gender affirming care” for adults, even as he outlines why these procedures in no way actually allow someone to transition sex or gender.[1] One of the only mainstream pundits who opposes so-called gender affirming care across the board, for adults and minors alike, is Matt Walsh. Several considerations inform why neither these procedures nor any recognition of one’s supposed “gender identity” should be tolerated in the slightest; very simply put,  transgenderism should not be countenanced, sanctioned, or tolerated by society in any way.

This treatise will set forth several inter-related contentions that, considered in tandem, mandate what is at this moment considered by many a somewhat radical position, but is in fact a position that is perfectly sensible and necessary for the greater good and welfare of society.  The first and central premise before all others is that humans simply cannot change sex. Even conceding that a very small percentage of persons are born with bona fide gender dysphoria, humoring their malady by allowing transgender surgeries or promulgating transgender ideology in public discourse begets a plethora of social ills. The harm these socials ills cause eclipse, by many orders of magnitude, any perceived social utility allegedly achieved by humoring the madness of transgender ideology.  This is a correct and obvious conclusion even if one concedes that some very limited instances of gender dysphoria are genuine and not induced by external influences–that is, not an idea planted into the minds of children, young people, or mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable adults by any number of externalities. These external influences can range from a sick, polluted cultural milieu, to deranged, maniacal parents possessed by any number of illicit motivations, whether Munchausen by Proxy, or a desire to sacrifice a child’s well-being in order to be perceived as a deep, caring, enlightened person, or whatever their motivations might be. Aside from allowing these nefarious ideas and practices into the stream of public discourse and the fabric of society, tolerating transgender ideology to flourish in any way allows nefarious elements to profit off horribly destructive practices, from “gender affirming care,” administration of puberty blockers, to a burgeoning industry of transgender counseling rackets, not to mention a well-financed punditry circuit that encourages and promotes these insane ideas.

Humans Cannot Change Sex or Gender, Horrific Surgeries and Fanciful Notions About Gender Identity Notwithstanding.  

As stated before, no one can change sex. Sex is determined at birth, at conception actually, and it is immutable (Anderson, 9, 77–85).  Any individual who has succumbed to transgender delirium in no way changes sex, but merely conceals or obliterates as many characteristics of the sex they were born as, to whatever extent is feasible for that individual, while counterfeiting signs of the sex they covet. Usually these attempts to imitate the sex coveted are poor indeed. As Dr. Paul McHugh concluded long ago, sex change surgery is “bad medicine” that “‘fundamentally cooperat[es] with a mental illness’” rather than treating it. (Anderson 17). In relation to both “male-to-female” and “female-to-male” transgenders, the result is a grotesque abomination that fools no one.

Some of these “tells” are not categorical in an absolute sense, but in aggregate they are. For example, there are some women of German and Nordic descent who have relatively large hands compared to say a woman of English or French descent.  But it is rare if not impossible that such an outlier would also be an outlier in all of these other criteria that cannot be obliterated, obscured, or masked through cosmetic surgery, deceptive angles in photography or posing in deceptive clothing, or, in the instance of so-called “male-to-female” transgenders, applying copious amounts of make-up, derisively referred to as “war paint” by some gender-critical women, and so on. A buxom, blonde Brünnhilde, endowed with the fairly large hands and elongated fingers customary of her phenotype, will also have a slender, elongated neck, more voluptuous hips, and other “tells” that unambiguously signal the female sex.  Not so with the “troon” imposter who attempts to replicate the female sex with such disastrous results.

The ultimate tell comes down to what is between the legs, the genitalia, as that is the single greatest distinction between the sexes and also the one characteristic that plastic surgery fails to imitate in such spectacular, horrific fashion.  With some extremely rare sexual abnormalities excepted[2], having either a penis or vagina determines whether a person is a man or woman, whether he ejaculates sperm or whether she ovulates or can conceive a child. Even the most deceptive transgender, always the outlier, fails that ultimate test.  Either a “male-to-female” transgender still has a penis and testicles, or has undergone a so-called transgender vaginoplasty.  Even the most deceptive “pooner” either still has a vagina, sometimes crudely referred to as a “bonus hole” both by transgender lunatics and their detractors, or the mangled monstrosity that is the so-called “neo-penis.”  As articulated in “Leaping Into Delusion, Death, and Personal Destruction: The Cost of Tolerating Transgenderism,” hardly anyone takes a romantic or sexual interest in transgenders.

Very simply put, straight men and lesbian or bisexual women want actual women, with a woman’s body and biology, including female pheromones, women’s breasts, woman’s hips, as well as a fully functioning vagina and uterus. The simple juxtaposition of a vintage Penthouse centerfold from back in the day, or any image of an attractive nude woman with any image of a troon, especially one depicting what is between that individual’s legs, demonstrates this is irrefutably so.

The same applies to the female-to-male variety:

Whether endowed with the vagina. . . or a “rot dog”. . .. [g]ay men and heterosexual women alike desire other men—not women pretending to be men, but men—endowed with an actual functioning penis, the broader shoulders, generally greater height and denser skeletal frame of a man, not women who have mutilated themselves [beyond recognition].

The horrors associated with surgeries that attempt to construct a “neo-penis” and “neo-vagina” have only been mentioned in passing.  Neither surgical construction is anything like the genuine article. Some of the defects of the “neo-vagina” include, but are in no way limited to, the following:

  • cannot lubricate like a real vagina;
  • cannot contract, convulse, or expand like a real vagina (the sexual organ is designed to give birth). Indeed there are accounts that it cannot accommodate even the moderately endowed;
  • does not emit female pheromones, and in fact often wreaks of excrement;
  • no g-spot or clitoris;
  • is not self-cleaning;
  • needs to be dilated regularly.

The horrors associated with the neo-penis are far more harrowing. Those readers interested in learning more are advised to consult with the discussion on this matter in Irreversible Damage.  The detailed accounts offered in that text are informative, but are also shocking, and not for the faint of heart. For the purposes of this treatise, it will simply be noted that:

  • a neo-penis cannot achieve an erection without a rod or inflating device;
  • cannot ejaculate sperm;
  • cannot orgasm;
  • is visually horrific,
  • requires multiple surgeries, very often with terrible complications.

In relation to genital mutilation and surgery, it must also be stressed that very often if not nearly always such surgeries destroy the ability to orgasm.

In Society’s Efforts To Be Tolerant, It Simply Encourages The Maddest Delusions

All of this demonstrates that by countenancing transgenderism at all, society is encouraging a false, fantastical delusion that cannot be realized.  This should be so obvious that debate on the transgender question should have lasted about five minutes.  Tolerating and countenancing transgenderism does much more than encourage this fantastical delusion to those who succumb to it directly, it harms society at large while inflicting those individuals not susceptible to this mass psychosis and hysteria with a multitude of societal ailments.  The sane amongst us have been coerced to humor the farce of customized pronouns and call men “trans women” and women “trans men,” often at threat of losing a job or otherwise being “cancelled.” Since transgenderism has entered the stream of society and culture, the sane amongst us have suffered a psychic toll as well, a matter elaborated in greater detail below.

Abigail Shrier and many others insist that legitimate gender dysphoria exists in an exceedingly rare number of young boys—that is gender dysphoria not instilled in the minds of the susceptible and gullible by suggestion, coaxing, or social contagion, but gender dysphoria that emerges without any external cultural influence or other externalities. In the introduction to Shrier’s Irreversible Damage, the number she provides is roughly 0.01 percent, or one in one thousand (xxi), although even that seems high; it must be noted that in her first appearance on Joe Rogan, she estimated legitimate cases of gender dysphoria were about 1 in 10,000, or, she incorrectly states, 0.01 cases—actually 0.01 percent. Cass recently corroborated many of Shrier’s contentions in Irreversible Damage in the Cass Report, although she did disseminate a letter distancing herself from Shrier while also confirming the legitimacy of transgender identity in some patients and even condoning “gender affirming” surgeries in some limited instances.  Even presupposing this conclusion is correct, it imposes a false economy on society. For the benefit of a small scintilla of the male population, untold number of burdens are imposed on society at large.

Above and below, a screenshot excerpting Cass’s disclaimer, and a suggested revision by this author as to how it ought to read.

Social Contagion, Defining Deviancy Down, and Desensitizing

As stated, so-called “gender affirming care” does not allow one to transition sex because changing sex—or gender—is impossible. What sanctioning or countenancing such absurd delusion does do is give these ideas, to the extent one can call them ideas at all, a foothold into the mainstream of our culture and society.  This then contaminates the minds of others in any number of ways. The social contagion theory advanced by the likes of Shrier and others is persuasive, as it is evidenced by the fact that transgenderism was so incredibly rare before this lunatic agenda gained a foothold in our culture. The cluster phenomenon is real, where harmful, self-destructive behaviors by one or a few people rub off on others.   As articulated in “When So Many Do Jump off a Bridge,” media have various protocols in place because even suicide will “rub off” on other people in ways utterly devoid of reason or rationality.  Society acknowledges and responds to these phenomena in human psychology in a number of different ways, including laws rightly banning or severely restricting cigarette and tobacco advertising. These bans and restrictions were implemented because masses of people do respond to advertising, no matter how illogical or self-destructive smoking cigarettes actually is. These phenomena in human psychology also inform important, vital policy considerations for imposing criminal sanctions on vices like prostitution and gambling.  For even though prostitution, gambling, and other such vices have always existed and will likely always exist, the prohibition of prostitution not only deters prostitution, it applies a social stigma on both clientele and the prostitutes alike, a sort of negative advertising against it. Before the age of the Internet, similar rationales informed the restriction of access by minors to pornographic material or even nudity in print and film.  The same rationale applies to illicit drugs and other vices.

Indeed, sanctioning or otherwise providing limited allowances for adults to pursue so-called “gender affirming care” or indulge any of the fantastical tenets of transgender ideology or radical gender theory demonstrates once again the axiomatic principle of Defining Deviancy Down. That principle dictates that if a society tolerates deviant behavior to a certain extent, that society loses the ability to regard such behavior as deviant or outside the mainstream—society loses the ability to resist such deviance effectively. Eventually, absent a proper response, formerly deviant behavior becomes mainstream, and other deviant behaviors that are even greater outliers then move up to the fringes of borderline or deviant behavior that is still stigmatized or regarded as deviant, but to some lesser extent.  By tolerating transgenderism to any degree, any degree whatsoever, even those cases that Shrier and others regard as legitimate, it becomes normalized and then gradually creeps into all facets of public life, including how public life relates to children, minors, young people, and especially young women who up until recently were very rarely or never known to suffer from gender dysphoria. Conceptualize tolerance of transgenderism (or any social ill, really) to a small, non-lethal dose of poison, that is gradually increased until the subject can consume ever larger doses of the poison that, while no longer lethal with built-up tolerance, are still toxic poisons that the body should not be exposed to. In this way, every encounter with a transgender person, every appearance on Dr Phil or transgender video on tiktok constitutes further incremental intake of that poison, destroying the body’s natural intolerance of that poison. By not tolerating transgenderism at all, transgenderism would have been stopped in its tracks and it would not have advanced to the precipice of the mainstream, such that it is promoted in many corners of our education system and mainstream culture.

Eliminating the Profit Motive

There is another consideration that applies to allowing horrific procedures touted as “gender affirming care.” By tolerating or allowing these procedures in any way, nefarious elements in the medical and counseling industries are allowed to profit off of these procedures, and profit quite handsomely. Some sample figures for the cost of the more prominent procedures are as follows:

  • between $25.000–$35.000 for so-called “phalloplasty,” that is the construction of a neo-penis which is, of course, nothing like a real penis. It cannot grow erect like a real penis, does not ejaculate semen, etc. Other estimates top $65,000;
  • a so-called vaginoplasty costs between $25,000–$35,000 to over $45,000;
  • a mastectomy (lopping off a woman’s breasts) can run over $10.000;
  • a regimen of puberty blockers can run $1,200 a month;
  • facial feminization surgery costs between $25–50.000;
  • who knows how many thousands of dollars for “counseling” sessions that simply encourage and promote this cursed plague.

Very often these and other procedures are covered by health insurance, as demanded by the transgender lobby. This means society at large finances this through increased premiums, or surprise bills that health insurance companies impose on the public by denying coverage for reasons no one really understands. And so far society at large has tolerated this.

Once any such enterprise is allowed to prosper in any way, it will always find a way to expand the market share. This axiomatic principle is demonstrated in this caption above depicting the explosion of gender clinics over the past fifteen years. Even presupposing that gender dysphoria legitimately exists in a small fraction of boys as is contended, and even conceding that drastic surgeries help such unfortunate persons cope with their lot, such considerations are outweighed, by many orders of magnitude, the need to prevent nefarious elements from peddling these procedures—at a handsome profit—to the public that otherwise would never have considered such lunacy in the first place. If genuine gender dysphoria does exist in a very small number of male children, a rarity tantamount to a deformity or other abnormality, society must come to the conclusion that that is simply their cross to bear and that they must deal with their sordid affliction as best they can, without society sanctioning or tolerating the fanciful notion that such individuals or—anyone—could ever transition sex or gender.

On the question of whether society should allow for the marketing and propagation of the transgender fantasy—and the so-called gender affirming procedures in particular—the answers may lie, at least in part, in a somewhat radical doctrine in products liability law and public policy known as product category liability, whereby a class of product is regarded as so dangerous, so undesirable, or offering such low social utility that the entire category of product should be banned altogether.  Examples of this include certain cheap, above the ground swimming pools, lawn darts[3], or the cheap “Saturday Night Special” pistols from decades ago.  Asbestos is probably the most infamous example of product category liability. That some children and even adults could use lawn darts safely was outweighed by the plethora of injuries and even fatalities that occurred because that product was allowed to be on the market at all. Of course, transgender procedures, in actuality, offer no redeeming social utility. There is no social utility in bodily and genital mutilation, just as there is no social utility in encouraging the abject lie that people can change sex.   If this doctrine cannot provide a legal solution to this menace in our irretrievably corrupt legal system, the underlying rationale of this doctrine is at least very instructive, as it enunciates reasons why undesirable, destructive product categories of low or no social utility should not be allowed on the market at all.  No product or service is more deserving of being removed from the market altogether than transgender procedures and transgender counseling.

Society Bears the Costs of the Psychic Toll for the Benefit of Remarkably Few

Indeed, the social costs incurred by offering any accommodations or conceding any ground to transgenderism—even in those rare instances that Shrier and others argue are legitimate—cannot be quantified.  Consider the psychic toll that allowing transgenderism—as an idea into society—imposes on everyone. This excerpt from “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern” describes the matter thusly:

Put bluntly, looking at these creatures takes a psychic toll on the mind, body, and spirit. Seeing a person who is obviously male in woman’s attire taxes the optic nerves of everyone who beholds such a monstrosity.  This is not merely because such persons break societal norms.  They are an affront not just to human sexuality, but an affront to the mammalian essence.

To look at these people is an affliction on the optical nerves, to be around them or hear them is an affliction on the ears as well as the eyes. Seeing men, most of whom suffer from autogynephilia, dressed in sexually provocative women’s attire imposes a cost on us all. Reconciling such attire and other feminine accoutrements with tells that unmistakably signal male—from broad shoulders, large hands, narrow hips, an Adam’s apple—imposes a psychological toll on the mind that is forced to reconcile two conflicting sets of information, one set consisting of remnant tells of the individual’s actual sex, which are in conflict with the counterfeit tells that range from preposterous, to the grotesque, to, in a small minority of instances, somewhat deceptive.

Being exposed to TikTok videos and other appalling instances in social media depicting otherwise attractive, healthy White women destroying their bodies exacts a hefty toll on the mind as well.  This social contagion, which is the focus of Irreversible Damage, strikes at something visceral, instinctual.  For younger readers who are millennials or zoomers, this contagion directly affects the pool of available women who would otherwise be suitable as potential girlfriends or wives.  Many younger readers might know a young woman who destroyed her body and mind in this way, maybe even a woman someone dated or fancied in some way. They will never have children.

For those older, it evokes a paternalistic instinct.  This mental anguish incurred at the mere sight of such monstrosities strikes at something ancient and primordial, going back to Helen of Troy. “A face that could launch a thousand ships” has been a centuries-long adage for a reason. That men have not been more protective of our young women is a terrible harbinger of our fate to come, harkening to island peoples and other primitive civilizations that did nothing about foreign imposters interloping with their women, or for that matter formerly great civilizations in prolonged imperial decline before the fall.

The transgender menace has exacted a toll in other ways. Both genders must now more closely scrutinize dating profiles, which can be hard because a facial profile does not show the entire body, as photos can be taken with deceptive angles or lighting (that concern of course pertains to other things as well, including weight). Grumblings online in transgender circles have evinced a repeated intention to at least try to deceive others into thinking that a transgender person is the sex coveted and not the sex such a person is born as and is. This is nothing less than constructive rape.  That a sizeable contingent of transgender “people” have such intentions and designs weighs on the mind. This is so even though the likelihood of a person actually being able to pull off such deception is extremely limited, although in the past some promiscuous men were apt to receive offers of fellatio from loose women without reciprocating in kind. Now, however, there is the possibility that it could be a man feigning the appearance of a woman to coax a man to agree to having such relations when he otherwise would not.  This of course is not to suggest tacit approval of such behavior, but even those who disapprove of such seedy behavior can still have empathy for what is in effect the use of deception to fool someone to consent to sexual activity that he in fact does not consent to.

Objections such as “why do you care?” notwithstanding, the presence of transgenderism and more particularly the odious sorts who have succumbed to this collective psychosis imposes a mental strain on those who are subjected to their appearance and presence. As explicated further in “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern,” even those “rare instances of transgenders who pass reasonably well have an uncanniness about their appearance that forces the mind to scrutinize the conflicting signals received, a most unwanted mental toil that transgenderism forces on us all.”  In regard to those exceptional outliers who deceive most at initial glance, such individuals “pass” by an elaborate form of deception, through radical, drastic surgeries and other forms of deception described earlier.  And even the most exceptional outliers never quite succeed in concealing or obliterating “all signs or tells of their actual sex.” Invariably, there are remnant “tells” of the person’s actual sex that conflict with the sex such individuals desire to be. In the instance of the “male-to-female” transgender, “the brain struggles to process . . . those nagging ‘tells’ that signify male—for example unusually narrow hips, large hands, or an Adam’s apple for a man presenting as a woman,” as those tells stand in direct contradiction with the “feminine” tells that the transgender individual has feigned by any number of deceptive methods, from plastic surgery, to “war paint” to carefully curated articles of clothing placed just so to hide that Adam’s Adam or obscure that narrow waste. The very same cognitive toil is afflicted by the sight of a creature, born female, who perpetrates the same sort of fraud. Of course, in all instances, the charade ends eventually, either when such a person is in a state of undress in a bathroom or gym locker or if someone should be so foolish or unfortunate as to decide to attempt having intimate relations with such a person:

And even for the rare transgender who reasonably passes as a woman at first glance, the lying and delusion ends in spectacular fashion for anyone stupid or gullible enough to believe that so-called transgender “women” are women when they see—or worse yet experience in other ways—what is between the legs: either a penis and testicles or the assorted horrors of the so-called neo-vagina.

There simply is no legitimate reason why the population at large should be subjected to this sort of mindfuck to appease a minute fraction of the population.

Moving Toward Uncompromising Intolerance

Quite recently Texas passed a law mandating that the Texas Department of Public Safety shall no longer allow deluded individuals taken with the transgender mania to “change their sex” on driver’s licenses. This policy correctly communicates that the state of Texas does not countenance or recognize the delusion that it is possible to change sex. This is an excellent first step, but it does not go nearly far enough. Indeed no state has banned transgender surgical procedures outright, that is for both adults and minors.  A list of states that have prohibited such procedures for minors in whole or in part is featured in this article.

This map exemplifies the problem. Just like limp-wristed, apprehensive conservative pundits, so many just stop at these procedures for minors. The proper response is to ban it altogether.

As set forth in this treatise, even supposing that there is some small benefit to the exceedingly rare instance of genuine gender dysphoria, that small benefit is engulfed by the massive costs and social problems suffered by society and those sane individuals among us. Simply ban both the procedures and the advertising and promotion of transgender ideology, not just for minors but for adults as well. With the current system and regime in place, this may be exceedingly difficult.  First Amendment jurisprudence offers far too much protection to commercial speech. Then again, if smoking is regarded as such a threat to the public health and the greater social good warranting severe restrictions against the advertising of tobacco products, not to mention other severe regulatory restrictions, this insane, deluded ideology deserves a far more robust response, as that ideology encourages people to mutilate their bodies and genitalia, rendering them sterile, unable to experience orgasms, not to mention subjecting such persons to astronomically high rates of suicide ideation. The problem of course is that, unlike with tobacco products, the medical profession, counseling racket, and other related lobbies that wield extraordinary influence over such public policy considerations are, to put it mildly, subject to ideopolitical capture.

Beyond the sort of regulatory or legislative restrictions envisioned in how the state has reacted to the tobacco menace in various countries, one approach that is feasible with the Constitution and the current regime in place is to simply deny transgender people any special status as a protected class under the onerous civil rights regime currently in place. This then allows level-headed communities to engage in extra-legal sanctions, such as denial of service. Trump 2.0 is certainly to be applauded in this regard, even though it stops short of banning transgender surgery for adults:

  • The government would recognize only two unchangeable sexes: female and male. information about what Trump calls “gender ideology” was removed from federal government websites and the term “gender” was replaced by “sex” to comport with the order. The Bureau of Prisons stopped reporting the number of transgender incarcerated people and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed lessons on building supportive school environments for transgender and nonbinary students.
  • Requests denied for passport gender markers.
  • Transgender women moved into men’s prisons.
  • Opening the door to another ban on transgender service members.
  • Defunding gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.
  • Barring schools from helping student social transitioning.

Even if one concedes the onerous regime of civil rights laws are overall an intrinsic good, there is a fundamental distinction between denying service based on an immutable characteristic like race—even if mainstream conservatives and conventional wisdom are so incredibly wrong about race being a superficial or innocuous difference—and the manner in which a person chooses to dress. If a sports bar catering to Red Sox fans can deny service to Yankees fans, if a Manchester United bar can deny service to Liverpool fans, then those opposed to transgender lunacy ought to have the right—and indeed do have the right and obligation—to deny service to transgender people.  Expressing animus, even hatred for transgender people is not only the right thing to do, denying service sends an important message, a message desperately needed in Europe and the West today; that message is transgenderism is not normal, it is abject insanity, and it is not tolerated or welcome here.

Given the seemingly impeachable status of civil rights laws both as a legal regime and a sentimentalized cultural legacy of the worst sort, even the right to not associate with such persons is under incredible pressure, as people have been sued for choosing not to bake a “transgender cake” or rendering other services.  As those questions impugn the tendency to fetishize or sentimentalize the Constitution, civil rights claptrap, and the democratic form of government as some sort of normative ideal, the inefficacy and timidity of mainstream opposition to transgender ideology shows familiar flaws with establishment conservatism. These flaws have revealed themselves in how pathetic and ineffectual resistance to gay marriage was and is, as well so many other catastrophic losses at the hands of mainstream conservatism.  Such flaws include a lack of intellectual sophistication, whereby very few can articulate how tolerating transgender ideology defines deviancy down, that by tolerating transgenderism people become desensitized to it, and in time, it loses its stigma as deviant behavior before becoming accepted as mainstream, to be replaced by something even more onerous (what that could possibly be one shudders to think). Nor have they considered that by allowing transgenderism to be promulgated to adults, both the tenets of transgender lunacy and a syndicate of for-profit rackets peddling “counseling,” surgeries and procedures, and professional-class punditry are allowed into the stream of discourse—into our culture—which will invariably influence not only vulnerable adults, who, contrary to all the hand-wringing, must not have the right to indulge such lunacy, but minors as well.

As with so many other catastrophic losses in the “culture war,” these failures exemplify the problems inherent in placing such emphasis on “individual liberty” to such excess that it outweighs, in such an absurdly lopsided manner, the greater societal costs by allowing and tolerating not just license and abandon, as the West has done for decades, but abject lunacy, delusion, and insanity. Resisting this threat to civilization will require a new approach to traditional, Anglo-American notions about individual liberty and personal choice, a new approach that understands inhibiting some “personal freedoms” allows for greater “freedom” and liberation to the masses. Nothing—no matter how seemingly sacred or long-standing—must be allowed to stand in the way of this epiphany.


Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his Substack page, theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.


[1] As articulated in “This Mockery of Language II: Gender Redefined,” Gender is largely synonymous with sex. The insistence that the meaning of “gender” entails definitions that coincide with the transgender agenda has been prescribed by ideologically corrupt editorial staff. The definition by Merriam-Webster explicitly states that the usage advocated by these radicals is prescribed for these various reasons, as set out in “This Mockery of Language II.”

[2] As other influential figures, including Matt Walsh and Ryan Anderson have explicated, citing the existence of rare sexual abnormalities and deformities is an absurd vehicle with which to advance the fantastical proposition that one can change sex or gender.

[3] Lawn darts were banned by regulatory action.  Although not an example of product category liability in regards to tort law per se, the underlying legal theory and social policy underlying this doctrine inform such legislative or regulatory action to ban something, as Professor Ausness and others have concluded that regulatory or legislative action is a better method of dealing with undesirable products subject to this legal doctrine.

An Open Letter to Robert Kennedy, Jr.

To the Honorable Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., Washington, DC.

Dear Sir:

First let me congratulate you on your appointment as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, an important responsibility within our federal government. I understand the agency employs over 83,000 workers and has an annual budget of more than one and a half trillion dollars. You clearly have your work cut out for you, and I do not wish to impose too greatly upon your time.

In fact, the constraints on your attention are one reason I write to you now. For despite your busy schedule, I understand you have recently joined in the fight against anti-Semitism—an ancient scourge which has often led to tragic consequences, as we all know. And I admire your determination to combat this virus of the mind. It is going above and beyond the call of duty for a Director of HHS to busy himself with a matter so completely unrelated to his job description.  Presumably you are trying to change your image as an anti-Semite stemming from your 2023 remarks on Covid, as reported in Forward:

RFK Jr.’s comments were a toxic mix of centuries-old antisemitism with a contemporary twist. And that’s worth parsing carefully, instead of just dismissing in disgust, because it’s a snapshot of what is happening right now on the technicolor stage of hate.

“COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” RFK Jr. said at a gathering at an Upper East Side restaurant that was caught on video by the New York Post“COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

“We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”

Well, good luck with changing your image. Apologizing and changing course never really help once you have said something Jews don’t like.

But regardless of all that, I wish to assure you that you are not alone. America’s Jews also have a friend in Roger Devlin, for example. In fact, most of us here at The Occidental Observer are really just softies at heart, and cannot resist the impulse to stand up for the underdog. I have known our editor Dr. Kevin MacDonald for many years now, and you will not find a more decent man. It has been my privilege to meet Dr. Andrew Joyce, Dr. Edmund Connelly, and several other contributors to our little publication, and I would say the very same of them. I wish to assure you personally, Mr. Kennedy, that our Jewish neighbors have determined defenders and allies in all of us here at TOO. We will not stand idly by should anyone attempt to assemble America’s Jewish community at collection points before shipping them off in cattle cars to camps for systematic extermination by means of Zyklon-B gas issuing through shower heads only for their mortal remains to be employed in the manufacture of soap and lampshades. No indeed. Not on our watch. Such unconcern would be foreign to our very nature. It’s simply not who we are.

In short, we have your back. You need not worry about persecuted Jews being left abandoned.

I hope this will go some way toward allaying your concerns and lightening your heavy workload. Perhaps you will now have more time to devote to other matters such as . . . oh I don’t know . . . human services, health, and stuff like that.

If you should be in need of any further advice or assistance in this matter, I can be contacted through www.theoccidentalobserver.net.

Sincerely,

Roger Devlin

Ties Abroad: The context and causes of Jewish immigration from 1881

[Alderman]: For British Jewry this represented a very considerable victory; it was little wonder that when Disraeli returned in triumph from Berlin, Moses Montefiore (despite his ninety-four years) was the first to greet him at Charing Cross railway station.17

[Horus]: “A very considerable victory” it was, over anyone more sympathetic to Christians than to Jews, as in the common folk of Christendom. The Congress of Berlin is spoken of by derivative historians today as a ‘triumph for Disraeli’, and it was, but for Disraeli as a Jew, not as the Prime Minister of Britain. Establishing the paradigm wherein British interests are treated as the automatic inverse of Russian (and Eastern Christian) ones was also a victory for Disraelites that continues to pay dividends today.

In a previous essay I discussed the causes of the Jewish immigration wave that began in 1881 and the role of the existing Jewish population and their supporters in Britain. Here I expand on the situation of Jews in Britain before 1881, their influence on British foreign and domestic policy, the reasons for the mass immigration from 1881 onwards and the initial reactions of the more settled population to the arrival of the new, drawing on the works of Jewish historians.

Jews in Britain before 1881

A mixture of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, amounting to 50-60,000 people, lived in Britain before the inundation from the east began, and they were remarkably free and prosperous compared to their co-religionists elsewhere.1 Todd Endelman tells us that

The great mass of Jews, who could hardly aspire to sit in Parliament or hold a naval commission, suffered little from legal inequality. There were no restrictions on the trades they might follow, the goods in which they might trade, the areas in which they might live. Nor were they subject to special taxes, tolls, levies, or extortions. The statute book simply ignored their presence….2

Some legal disabilities did apply to Jews in statute but had long been enforced inconsistently. As Geoffrey Alderman describes, “professing Jews were prohibited from voting in British parliamentary elections until 1835”, after which they were on par with native Britons, but though before that date “the returning officers who supervised constituency election arrangements had the right to demand the swearing of a Christian oath by all intending voters… this was not a right they were obliged to exercise,” and some chose not to:

In May 1830 Sir Robert Wilson told the House of Commons that Jews habitually voted in parliamentary elections in Southwark (south London) because no one bothered to insist that they take the Christian oath. In December 1832 Rabbi Asher Ansell of Liverpool was clearly able to vote in the general election without hindrance.3

After gaining the right to vote, British Jewry was still eluded by

...full political emancipation – meaning the right of professing Jews to stand as candidates for, and be elected to, the House of Commons. Jews were not the only religious group to be denied this right. Catholics had only won the right in 1829. Unitarians did not then enjoy the right, nor did atheists.4

Emancipation was achieved largely thanks to the propinquity of wealthy Jews to powerful Britons. The campaign for it, as Endelman says, was “the work of a handful of ambitious, well-connected City men, whose close government contacts allowed them to put the question of Jewish disabilities on the national agenda.”5 Common British folk, and presumably the enemies of Jewry, lacked such contacts or campaigned less effectively; the successful demonstrations against the Jew Bill of 1753 were not replicated.

Overrepresentation in politics followed immediately. As Alderman describes,

Lionel de Rothschild’s ceremonial entry into the House of Commons to take his seat (28 July 1858) was an occasion of great communal rejoicing, but it also brought into the open a worry… Jews were overrepresented in the social strata from which the political classes were drawn, and there were enough of them with sufficient private wealth to make their candidatures an attractive proposition regardless of their religious backgrounds. So the Jewish presence in the legislature grew with embarrassing speed. […] After the general election of 1865 no less than six Jews sat in the Commons; a further two were returned at by-elections during the lifetime of the 1865-8 Parliament.

Compared with the proportion which Jews comprised of the total population of the United Kingdom, they were already ‘overrepresented’ in the Commons, a state of affairs that has persisted ever since.6

The Liberal Party was identified as the vehicle for Jewish interests. By the late 1860s,

“[w]ithout exception all the Jewish MPs at this period were Liberals. The first Jewish Conservative MP, the obscure Nottinghamshire coal-owner Saul Isaac, did not make his appearance at Westminster till 1874. Until then the parliamentary Jewish lobby was a Liberal lobby, one which had, moreover, developed during the decade (1859-68) when the Liberal party had taken on a definite form and substance, under the leadership of, first, Lord John Russell and then Gladstone. The triumphs of Liberalism and Jewish emancipation thus seemed to go hand in hand, as products of the same political ethos. On Saturday, 28 April 1866 there was a remarkable demonstration of this fact, when Russell’s Parliamentary Reform bill passed its second reading in the Commons by a majority of five votes; all six Jewish MPs voted for it, the sabbath notwithstanding.”7

Endelman shows that a degree of formal exclusion from the City of London (the financial centre) did not stop Jews trading there.8 Certainly long before 1881, Jews like the Rothschild and Mocatta families were prominent in finance, spanning bond and commodity trading to every sort of brokerage. The Rothschilds in particular were uniquely important in enabling states to borrow and, as they worked as an international partnership, their role in financing wars made their approval a factor in deciding which states could afford to fight and when.

No Jewish family, and no other family, was as rich as the Rothschilds, but Jews in general were ascendant in wealth. As Endelman says,

At the start of the nineteenth century, most Jews in England were immigrants or the children of immigrants—impoverished, poorly educated, dependent on low-status street trades and other forms of petty commerce, popularly identified with crime, violence, and chicanery, widely viewed as disreputable and alien. Over the next three-quarters of a century, the social character of the Jewish community was transformed dramatically. Poverty ceased to be its defining characteristic. On the eve of mass migration from Eastern Europe, the majority of Jews in Britain were middle class. They were native English speakers, bourgeois in their domestic habits and public enthusiasms, full citizens of the British state, their public and personal identities increasingly shaped by the larger culture in which they lived—even if their gentile neighbors viewed them as less than fully English.9

Geoffrey Alderman’s description is similar. In 1883,

Over half London Jewry [the bulk of British Jewry] was now located within the middle‑classes; in 1850 the proportion had been about a third. Moreover, we know from Jacobs’ painstaking examination of commercial directories and other records that within these middle‑classes the greatest single occupational group was to be found within the financial sector—pre-eminently the Stock Exchange—followed by general merchants (over half the dealers in military stores were Jews) and certain manufacturing sectors (cigars, pipes, slippers and boots, furniture, furs, jewellery and watches, and diamonds). Jews still accounted for only 6% of London’s tailors and only 5% of London Jewry was engaged in the professions—barristers and solicitors, surgeons, dentists and architects.10

Jews were well-positioned to influence British policy in favour of their own tribe, and they did so. They were, however, also forced to adapt to the effects of the far larger numbers of Jews entering from 1881, and in some ways were altered by it. Subsequent essays will show that British history over the subsequent century and a half has been characterised by the part-confrontation, part-collaboration of the older, more settled, more wealthy Anglo-Jewry and the later incomers from eastern Europe.

Modern Jewish Politics and foreign policy

The burgeoning of the Jewish population even before 1881 resulted in ever-growing pressure on British politicians to divert British policy in favour of Jewish interests. There has never been a body that speaks for all Jews, but several institutions constitute communal leadership with at least the tacit acceptance of a large majority of Jews in Britain. The Board of Deputies of British Jews is the most ‘central’ of these, and as early as 1836, “the Board notified the chancellor of the exchequer that it was the only official channel of communication for the secular and political interests of the Jews.”11

Throughout the 19th century, the Board and the leading families that controlled it increasingly concerned themselves with the interests of Jewry worldwide. The historian C. S. Monaco has described their practices as ‘the rise of modern Jewish politics’ and has shown how they set the pattern for the present and the past century.12 From the 1840s, Jewish interventions in foreign affairs were usually led by Sir Moses Montefiore, the long-standing president of the Board of Deputies, who famously travelled to petition for Jewish interests in several countries.

Moses Montefiore

From 1871, the Board faced competition from the Anglo-Jewish Association. As Alderman describes, “[t]he Association might indeed have become a rival to the Board of Deputies”, and “[a]t first the Board of Deputies held aloof from it. But after its very effective intervention during the Balkan crisis of the late 1870s… the Board came to terms with it, and agreed in 1878 to the formation of a Conjoint Foreign Committee, consisting of seven representatives from the Board and seven from the Association.” The collaboration was productive. Jews thereafter had “an Anglo-Jewish ministry of foreign affairs” whose deliberations “were conducted in secret” and whose “conclusions were reported to neither of its constituent bodies.”13 In addition to the “close contacts” that won Jews the right to enter Parliament, the “overrepresentation” that immediately followed and the proclivities of some powerful Britons to put Jewish interests first, the secret “ministry” ensured that Jewish interests worldwide would be represented immediately and insistently in a way that had never applied to the British people or Christians.

It had become advantageous to be an ethnic minority in Britain. While Jews’ assertive internationality was rewarded, no such ministry for the native British would have been suffered to exist, let alone given any audience by the powerful. As Endelman approvingly describes,

In Victorian Britain, at least before the end of the century, the pressures that caused Jews elsewhere to abandon traditional notions of peoplehood, collective fate, and mutual responsibility were muted. British Jews were free to express their ties to Jews abroad without fear of endangering their own struggle for civil equality and social acceptance. In this sense, the diplomatic activities of Montefiore and the Board of Deputies … testify to the confidence of communal leaders about their own status. It is important to stress this, for the contrary has been argued. … Only toward the end of the century, with classical liberalism under attack and nationalism and antisemitism on the rise, did fears [of emancipation being reversed] gain ground and begin to shape communal policy—especially in regard to the newcomers from Eastern Europe. 14

Earlier in the century, Jews openly tried to steer policy their way. Later they gained reasons to hew closer in their overt conduct to the gentile elite, whose receptiveness to them was already in evidence. See my article “Resplendent Cosmopolitanism” on the Jewish associations of King Edward VII.

Resplendent CosmopolitanismKing Edward VII

Jewish foreign policy: Pursuing Jewish, not British, interests

The first professing Jewish member of Parliament, Lionel de Rothschild, probably the richest man in the world, and others of his family, used their influence in favour of the Ottoman Empire and against Europe, as did their friend and beneficiary Benjamin Disraeli. In 1876,

Disraeli’s Eastern policy had the warm approval of most British Jews. In the first place Jews had considerable investments in Turkey, and were loath to see them thrown away because of Gladstone’s conscience. Beyond that, British Jews, in common with their co-religionists in Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, and America, looked at the situation from the point of view of Balkan Jewry. Turkish rule had allowed these Jews ‘a degree of tolerance far beyond anything conceded by Orthodox Christianity’. A. L. Green, minister of the prestigious Central Synagogue in London’s West End and ‘a Liberal in politics all my life’, instructed the Liberal Daily News ‘The Christian populations of the Turkish provinces have held, and continue with an iron hand to hold, my coreligionists under every form of political and social degradation.’

As Alderman describes, “With very few exceptions… British Jews did not merely refuse to be associated with Gladstone’s Bulgarian Agitation; they actively opposed it.” Jewish allegiances in Britain were decided by the perceived interests of Jews at the other end of Europe. The Rothschilds became Tory supporters. “The Daily Telegraph (owned by the Jewish Levy-Lawson family) swung its influence behind Disraeli’s policy.” Then a “conference of European and American Jewish organizations” met to discuss “the reopening of the Eastern Question to improve the lot of Balkan Jewry” and soon afterward the Anglo-Jewish Association lobbied the government to amend British foreign policy. That the Ottoman forces had verifiably slaughtered thousands of Bulgarians while the Jewish organisations were merely vaguely presaging crimes against their co-religionists made no difference. “When war broke out between Russia and Turkey the following year, Sir Moses Montefiore made no secret about where his sympathies lay; he contributed £100 to the Turkish Relief Fund.”15

Alderman complains that “[i]t never occurred to Gladstone to consider the position of Balkan Jews, whom Turkish rule had allowed ‘a degree of tolerance far beyond anything conceded by Orthodox Christianity’.”16 Why that would occur to Gladstone is unexplained. Were Jewish interests already so sharply divergent from British ones, and on major issues? If so, was it Gladstone’s duty to side against his own people? And were Jewish politicians not loyal to Britain first? Evidently not. Then as now, Jewish politicians, activists, journalists and historians openly sided with their own tribe, wherever located, against the host nation, with scarcely any reproach, and no threat of expulsion. See: “Beaconsfield Revisited.”

Beaconsfield Revisited

The Rothschilds’ pre-eminence as financiers of states enabled them to be represented by the two main powers at the Congress of Berlin. As Alderman describes,

While the Anglo-Jewish Association (later in collaboration with the Board of Deputies) petitioned the British Government on the need to secure the civil and political rights of Jews in newly independent Balkan states, the aged Lionel de Rothschild mobilized the considerable resources of his extended European family, and those of his German-Jewish banking associate Gerson von Bleichröder (Bismarck’s banker and adviser) to influence proceedings at the Congress of Berlin called to resolve the crisis, and of which Bismarck was President. The result was that the western European delegates at Berlin refused to sign a final treaty until Jewish anxieties had been allayed. The Treaty of Berlin, when signed in July 1878, thus contained definite guarantees of civil and political rights for the Jews of Romania, Bulgaria, and the Danubian principalities.

For British Jewry this represented a very considerable victory; it was little wonder that when Disraeli returned in triumph from Berlin, Moses Montefiore (despite his ninety-four years) was the first to greet him at Charing Cross railway station.17

“A very considerable victory” it was, over anyone more sympathetic to Christians than to Jews, as in the common folk of Christendom. The Congress of Berlin is spoken of by derivative historians today as a ‘triumph for Disraeli’, and it was, but for Disraeli as a Jew, not as the Prime Minister of Britain. Establishing the paradigm wherein British interests are treated as the automatic inverse of Russian (and Eastern Christian) ones was also a victory for Disraelites that continues to pay dividends today.

The Liberal Party lost Jewish electoral support, funding and candidates:

[T]he secession of the Rothschilds had turned a great many City Jews into Conservatives, and seems to have acted as a green light to provincial Jewries also to demonstrate their support for Conservatism. This happened at Liverpool in 1876 and three years later at Sheffield, where the Conservative candidate won the support of Jews specifically because of issues of foreign policy.18

An impression of the Congress of Berlin

The loss was fruitless. Disraeli had his way at Berlin anyway, the Conservative Party was accommodating, and Gladstone and the Liberals resisted Jewish demands only to the extent of causing anger, not defeat. As Alderman describes,

the Bulgarian Agitation had had unpleasant anti-Jewish overtones, in which Disraeli’s own ethnic origins were exploited to the full, particularly by Liberal members of the intelligentsia such as Gladstone’s friend and future biographer, John Morley. Worse still, Gladstone himself had unleashed the full fury of his oratorical powers against Jews and Jewish influence. ‘I deeply deplore’, he told Leopold Gluckstein, author of a pamphlet on The Eastern Question and the Jews, ‘the manner in which, what I may call Judaic sympathies, beyond as well as within the circle of professed Judaism, are now acting on the question of the East.’19

Gladstone’s deploration only amounted to a campaigning stance while in opposition. His own conduct of foreign policy, after he became Prime Minister in 1880, is generally agreed to have been aimless and ill-informed. And though, as Alderman notes, Gladstone refused “to become moved by the plight of Russian Jewry, or to get up an ‘agitation’ on its behalf,” it was under his premiership that the westward flood of eastern European Jews began, which led to the Jewish population of Britain quintupling by the First World War. The effects of ‘Judaic sympathies’ were multiplied in intensity by Gladstone’s own passivity toward the composition of the demos.

William Gladstone

Reasons for mass migration

Still, it would be misleading to single out Gladstone for condemnation. Jewish immigration on a smaller scale preceded 1881. According to Endelman, “In addition to middle-class immigration from Germany, there was also a small but steady trickle of impoverished Jews from Eastern Europe—contrary to the popular myth that the pogroms of 1881 inaugurated immigration from Poland and Russia.”20 Alderman notes that “The famine in north-east Russia in 1869-70 had brought some migrants to Britain; young Jewish men, seeking to escape service in the Russian army during the war with Turkey in 1875-6, also made their way to England” before ‘the pogroms’.21 Before 1881, chain migration was underway: “as Professor Gartner has noted, a high proportion of Jewish immigrants to Britain before the 1870s appear to have been single men, without family responsibilities.’ But by 1875 this pattern had broken down.”22 Simply, as Lloyd Gartner says, “emigration did not begin on account of pogroms and would certainly have attained its massive dimensions even without the official anti-Semitism of the Russian Government.”23 Endelman’s explanation is worth quoting in full:

The most fundamental cause of emigration from Eastern Europe was the failure of the Jewish economy to grow as rapidly as the Jewish population. Between 1800 and 1900, the Jewish population of the Russian empire shot from one million to five million persons, exclusive of the one million who emigrated before the end of the century. (The Jews of Galicia, who enjoyed Habsburg tolerance but contributed to the migration current nonetheless, increased from 250,000 to 811,000.) During this same period, tsarist policy toward Jews oscillated between schemes to coerce their russification (through military service or education in state schools, for example) and measures to accomplish the reverse, that is, to isolate them from contact with sections of Russian society considered too weak to resist their alleged depredations—the peasantry, in particular. Measures with the latter goal in mind constricted Jewish economic activity and caused increasing immiseration over the course of the century. As the number of Jews exploded, the government repeatedly imposed limits on their ability to support themselves. With the exception of certain privileged persons, Jews were forbidden to live outside the Pale of Settlement, Russia’s westernmost provinces, and thus were denied access to those cities and regions where industrialization was creating new opportunities. At the same time, the government undertook steps to remove Jews from border regions and the countryside and concentrate them in the Pale’s overcrowded cities. There artisans and petty traders faced mounting competition from each other and, in the case of the former, from factory production as well. General conscription of Jewish males, imposed in 1873, as well as countless arbitrary acts of cruelty, made material immiseration seem even more unbearable.

In this context the pogroms of 1881 and the repressive legislation that followed were more catalyst than cause. Spreading fear and despair throughout Poland and Russia, they convinced the young that they had scant hope for a better future under tsarist rule. They accelerated a decades-old movement, causing migration to assume a momentum and life of its own. Personal exposure or immediate proximity to mob violence was not necessary to set people in motion. The first waves of immigrants to Britain came disproportionately from northern districts in the Pale, which were hardly touched by the pogroms of 1881. In Habsburg Galicia, which remained relatively free of pogroms throughout this period, a higher proportion of Jews migrated than in Russia. Here economic backwardness propelled migration—to Britain, the United States, and the Habsburg capital, Vienna.24

Susan Tananbaum places more emphasis on Jews’ plight and notes that “pogroms, such as the one in Kishinev in 1903 and elsewhere, and the failure of the 1905 Revolution, provided additional impetus to leave” but agrees that “population increases and poverty had the greatest impact” and says that “[f]or several million Jews, the opportunities of the industrializing West offered their best hope for the future.”25 As Alderman says,

most emigrants from eastern Europe were not, in the narrow sense, political refugees or, in the narrow sense, the victims of persecution. Most came from Lithuania and White Russia, where there was comparatively little anti-Jewish violence. Of course, the Russian pogroms that followed the assassination of Alexander II [in 1881], and which were renewed and intensified between 1882 and 1889, and again between 1902 and 1906, turned the trickle of Jewish refugees from Russia that had been observed before 1880 into a flood; restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on Jewish residence, the forcing of Jews off the land while they were prohibited from living in cities, the expulsion of Jews from Moscow in 1891, all made it virtually impossible for most Russian Jews to participate in normal economic life.

In the west, pogroms and persecutions were regarded as the basic causes of Jewish emigration. In truth the picture was much more complex. The overriding reason for Jewish emigration from eastern Europe to England was economic. During the nineteenth century the Jewish population of the Russian Empire increased from one to over six millions. Given the ever more onerous restrictions on Jewish life, this burgeoning population sought better prospects elsewhere. But the towns to which they were drawn could not support them; the flow was driven further west, and, eventually, overseas. Nor did this flow originate only in Russia or Russian Poland. The Jews of Galicia (then part of the Habsburg Empire) were politically emancipated in 1867 and were relatively persecution-free thereafter; but Jews emigrated from Galicia in greater proportion than they did from Russia. From Romania, in 1899—1900, came a stream of fusgayers (walkers), a spontaneous march across Europe by young Jews searching to escape from persecution, famine, and hopelessness.26

Fusgayers from Romania

Gartner describes the escalation of the migration wave:

The turn of the century brought a decade of turmoil. In almost consecutive order, East European Jewry underwent the Rumanian ‘exodus’ of 1900, the Kishinev outrage of 1908, the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, the Revolution of 1905, and its trail of pogroms lasting into 1906. Under these hammer blows, the semblance of orderly movement which had been preserved for some ten years vanished. Waves of Rumanian wanderers, fleeing conscripts, pogrom victims, and above all, Jews who simply despaired of improvement in Russia streamed into the British Isles in proportions which bewildered those who tried to organize the flow. An added magnet was the dissolution of the “Atlantic Shipping Ring’ and that price war upon the high seas, the Atlantic Rate War from 1902 to 1904. Previously, English shippers had agreed with Continental firms that they would not sell their cheaper trans-Atlantic tickets to transmigrants. The connivances used by immigrants to outwit the shippers were abandoned and the fare dropped precipitously. Furthermore, a recognizable number of Jews from South Africa sought refuge at the commencement of the Boer War. By 1907, the great waves had spent themselves, and the Aliens Act [of 1905] erected a barrier to uncontrolled torrents.27

See my article “Great Variance.”

Great Variance

Gartner characterises the easterly flood as “a spontaneous movement of people which flowed unencouraged by outsiders.”28 Yet Jews in America at the time, concerned with limiting immigration as well as helping those who had already immigrated settle, noted that “many of the refugees had been lured by extravagant promises of assistance and ‘glowing accounts of America given them by persons interested in inducing them to emigrate”.29 Many of those who settled in Britain had been in transit to America but found reasons to stop partway. Gartner himself describes how British officials in Odessa “always warned those who are proceeding to England to settle there that England is over crowded with unemployed workmen and that it is most undesirable that people should proceed there… but they invariably insist on going as their friends send them glowing accounts and also money to pay their passage.’”30

Lures

Immigration was also encouraged by and profitable for organised criminals and predators. According to Nelly Las, in large cities in Eastern Europe, “prostitution took place in certain sections known to be controlled by the Jewish underworld, to which the authorities turned a blind eye… In 1908, the American consul in Odessa reported that ‘All the business of prostitution in the city is in the hands of the Jews’.” Amid mass migration, “Jewish criminals… exported prostitution to distant lands.” Some prostitutes chose to move to wealthier countries in the expectation of earning more. Others were trafficked: “To entice their victims, Jewish sex traffickers used newspaper advertisements for jobs, the promise of an immigration certificate, and marriage proposals, all the while taking advantage of the parents’ naiveté and poverty.”31 As Tananbaum describes, “immigrants, particularly women, found travel precarious… Dishonest agents overcharged immigrants, promised them a marriage partner at the end of their journey, tricked them into the white slave trade or raped or harassed them en route.”32 Jewish women entering Britain could also be trapped into prostitution on arrival. “In the chaos of landing, the recruiter could too easily entice some friendless bewildered girls to accept hospitality at a place which would turn out to be a brothel”, according to Gartner.33

Jewish communal leaders were aware that Jews were over-represented in slavery both as victims and as perpetrators. Constance Rothschild co-founded the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls and Women in 1885 to address the “mixture of Jewish traffickers and Jewish victims”.34 The latter were thought unlikely to seek help from Christian organisations. The JPGAW observed that “the girls have been lured from their parents and natural protectors, to be taken for immoral purposes to lands strange to them where a language they cannot understand is spoken.” According to Tananbaum, “[t]he founders soon learned that local prostitution was only a small part of a worldwide sex slave trade involving a number of Jews and extending from Eastern Europe to South America” and that “[w]hile small in total number, Jews made up a significant proportion of white slavers.”35 “The principal ‘contribution’ made by Jews was the supply of girls to the entrepôts of the system in Buenos Aires, Bombay, Constantinople, and elsewhere, fresh from the East European Pale and London also”, according to Gartner. As Las describes, “Jewish sex traffickers were prominent in major transit points from Europe to Latin America, such as Berlin, London, and Hamburg. In the latter, for example, of 402 sex traffickers caught by police in 1912, 271 were Jewish.”36

Numbers of immigrants

The immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe into Britain and America should be thought of less as a great flight of innocents from persecution and more as a great transposition of a large part of the Jewish population and its ways of life into the receiving countries. The larger the Jewish population in the West grew, the easier it was to avoid adapting or assimilating, even if the setting had changed for some from rural to urban, and some old trades were unviable in the West. The years from 1870 to 1914 “witnessed a phenomenal growth” of the Jewish population “both quantitatively and qualitatively” according to Immanuel Jakobovits. Gartner says that the population movement “was of vast proportions”.37 As Alderman describes,

“On the eve of the Russian pogroms the number of Jews living in London was, as we have seen, about 46,000, and in the country as a whole around 60,000. By 1914 these totals had been dwarfed by the arrival of about 150,000 immigrants; most found their way to London. Merely from a demographic viewpoint this amounted to a revolution. [B]etween 1881 and 1900 London Jewry expanded to approximately 135,000 [and] of these, it was estimated in 1899 that roughly 120,000 were living in the East End.”38

Between 250,000 and 300,000 Jews lived in Britain by the time of the Great War. “Merely from a demographic viewpoint this amounted to a revolution”, says Alderman.39 The inflow also had other revolutionary effects. Assimilation was a threat that was successfully headed off, as Jakobovits describes:

[T]his influx was no doubt responsible for the intensity of the religious and Zionist commitment, the diversity, and indeed the sheer survival of the community as we know it today. Without this enormous transfusion of new blood, very few descendants of those resident in this country in 1870 would now maintain their Jewish identity, let alone sustain a vibrant Jewish community.40

Reaction of settled Jews

The position of the older Jewish population was transformed. Through the Jewish Board of Guardians or ad-hoc relief efforts many aimed to help those who had arrived survive and, as seen, avoid being drawn into criminality or slavery, but did not typically encourage more to come. Although, according to Robert Henriques, the influence of the Board of Deputies “had been largely responsible for the liberal immigration policy which had doubled or trebled the numbers of Anglo-Jewry after 1880”41 and, as Gartner says, the “leading families like Rothschild, Montefiore, and Mocatta … would have kept the gates of England always open to all”, they “would give no encouragement and as little aid as possible to immigrants”.42 A typical view was that the “Jewish community could best protect itself from the charge of fostering immigration by ignoring the immigrant.”43 Aid could be expected to beget the demand for more aid. The Jewish Chronicle observed as early as 1880 that “over ninety per cent of our applicants to our Board of Guardians have been subjects of the Czar, and the larger proportion of our poor are invariably immigrants from Russia or Poland.”44 With whatever reluctance, though, aid and other kinds of communal uplift were provided. A typical view at the time was that “[t]hey will drag down, submerge and disgrace our community if we leave them in their present state of neglect”.45 Alderman summarises:

Jews already settled in Britain objected to foreign-born Jews coming to Britain because these foreign Jews drew attention to themselves, and brought political controversy in their wake, so that the public mind became focused upon Jews as foreigners and a cause for concern at the very time at which the established Jewry was trying its hardest to blend itself, chameleon-like, into its non-Jewish environment… Jews became news.46

Blending in became impossible, the more so as newcomers brought new ideas and advanced them with vigour and disregard for any pre-existing consensus. The immigrants, unlike the Rothschilds and the cousinhood, were “Poor (for the most part), Yiddish-speaking, Orthodox, socialist and Zionist”.47 As James Appell describes, the immigrants into London also “resented an attitude towards them from their co-religionists which placed low value on the character of the immigrant.”48 There was unanimity on two points, though: “[t]he Yiddish press kept a prudent distance from contentious social and economic questions, except the defence of Jews against anti-Semitism and in favour of free immigration to England.”49 The newcomers outnumbered the older Jewish population manifold, and today “[t]he vast majority of British Jews are third- or fourth-generation descendants of working-class migrants from eastern Europe”, according to Alderman.50 As will be seen in future essays, Britain was altered by the incomers in unprecedented ways. As Alderman says,

The Jewish immigrants changed the shape of the British polity as surely as they changed the structure of British Jewry: the Jewish experience and the British experience merged and affected each other in a manner far more central than that offered by emancipation itself. 51

My people were refugees, goy

That ‘mass immigration’ into Britain began in 1997 or later is a myth convenient to those who condone the smaller numbers that came before. First as immigrants themselves, then as advocates, instigators and facilitators, Jews have been inseparably involved with mass migration into white countries. Their own movement through Europe, sometimes marching in columns, prefigured that of Muslims in the decades since the Second World War. Angela Merkel, who proudly opened Germany to the entry of more than a million Africans and Asians per year from 2015, has been lavishly acclaimed by Jewish activists and the state of Israel. Vaguely the advocates of immigration speak as though her importees were all refugees, a tactic that continues to work. Except in Israel, Jewish organisations, including the Board of Deputies, routinely cite the experiences of their ancestors to justify their pro-immigration stance. While British electors and leaders continue to respond cravenly, they will do nothing for their own nation. Repudiating the myths may help revive it.


1

Modern British Jewry, Geoffrey Alderman, 1992, p117

2

The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000, Todd Endelman, 2002, p73-4

3

Controversy and Crisis, Geoffrey Alderman, 2008, p274

4

Geoffrey Alderman in Leeds and its Jewish Community, edited by Derek Fraser, 2019, ch1

5

Endelman, p106

6

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p63-4

7

The Jewish Community in British Politics, Geoffrey Alderman, 1983, p31. The sabbath was to become more withstanding when it came to the controversy over Sunday trading laws, to be covered in a later article.

8

Endelman, p36, 101, 277 (note 36)

9

Endelman, p79

10

Controversy, Alderman, p234

11

Endelman, p106. Endelman adds parenthetically that the Board “continued to make this claim throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, although there was no legal basis for it.” For more on the question of the extent to which the Board speaks for Jews, see The Communal Gadfly, Geoffrey Alderman, 2009, p15-28.

12

See The Rise of Modern Jewish Politics, C.S. Monaco, 2013. Today, similar practices are continued by the likes of the World Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League, though Jews’ situation has been transformed since the 1880s.

13

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p96

14

Endelman, p123-4

15

Jewish Community, Alderman, p37-8 and Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p99. See also Alderman, MBJ, p98-9: “[M]ost British Jews supported Disraeli’s Eastern policy.”

16

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p98-9

17

ibid., p99-100

18

ibid., p99-100

19

ibid., p99-100]

20

Endelman, p81. See also p128: “Contrary to popular myth, East European immigration did not begin with the pogroms that swept through Bessarabia and Ukraine in 1881.”

21

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p112. ‘Pogroms’, referring varyingly to organised riots against Jews or to more spontaneous inter-communal violence, had occurred before 1881, but the term ‘the pogroms’ is sometimes used to refer to the violence of 1881-2 and the subsequent mass emigration.

22

ibid., p82

23

The Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870-1914, Lloyd Gartner, 1973, p41

24

Endelman, p128-9. See also Gartner, p41. As Gartner says of the population increase, “The economic structure of Jewish life failed to expand with the needs imposed by this unprecedented increase.” See Gartner, p21. “Economic backwardness” was a cause of broader trends in rural-to-urban migration at the same time. According to Gartner, “[b]etween the earlier years of the nineteenth century and 1930 occurred the heaviest voluntary migration of people known in history… 62,000,000 persons… crossed international frontiers in this age of relative ‘free trade’ in human movement… migration, even of such dimensions, was itself partly an aspect of such pervasive nineteenth century trends as industrial development, urban growth, and strivings for personal freedom. Under the heading of migration one may well include tens of millions more who crossed no political boundary, yet traversed an economic frontier by pulling up stakes from a farm or village community and settling in an industrial city within their own country.” Gartner, p270

25

Jewish Immigrants in London, 1880-1939, Susan Tananbaum, 2014, p22

26

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p111-2. Columns of African and Asian ‘fusgayers’ marched through Europe in 2015.

27

Gartner, p46-7

28

Gartner, p12

29

Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-2, John Doyle Klier, 2011, p373. In the 1940s, the Jewish-owned Gleaner used similar methods to entice Afro-Caribbeans to move to Britain.

30

Gartner, p29. He cites the example of a villager seeing the volume of money being sent from Britain to his neighbours and deciding to move too.

31

White Slavery, Nelly Las, Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, 2021. Jewish Women’s Archive

32

Tananbaum, p19

33

Gartner, p183. “In 1910, the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls and Women (JAPGW) called a conference in London to discuss the issue. It was attended by representatives from all over the world and focused on Jewish women from Russia and Romania leaving Europe and becoming involved in prostitution in South America. The editors of Anglo-Jewry were concerned that white slaving was seen as a Jewish issue and that more than just Jews were involved in the trafficking of women. At a Yorkshire level, the Hull Jewish community were sufficiently concerned that they monitored all single Jewish girls who came through the port as lone travellers and checked that they safely reached their destination.” Grizzard in Leeds, edited by Fraser, ch7

34

Constance Rothschild, Lady Battersea, Linda Gordon Kuzmack and Ellery Gillian Weil, Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, 2021. Jewish Women’s Archive

35

Tananbaum, p132-3

36

Las, 2021

37

Preface by Immanuel Jakobovits to The Jewish Immigrant in England by Gartner, p1, and p45

38

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p117-8

39

Controversy, Alderman, p196-7

40

Jakobovits in Gartner, p1. Endelman concurs with Jakobovits: “[W]ithout this infusion of new blood, the small, increasingly secularized, native-born community, left to itself, would have dwindled into insignificance, as drift, defection, and indifference took their toll.” Endelman p127

41

Sir Robert Waley Cohen, 1877-1952: A Biography, Robert Henriques, 1966, p353

42

Gartner, p50-1

43

ibid., p55-6

44

ibid., p41]

45

James Appell in New Directions in Anglo-Jewish History, edited by Geoffrey Alderman, 2010, p31-2

46

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p120

47

Alderman in Leeds, edited by Fraser, ch1

48

Appell in New Directions, edited by Alderman, p31-2

49

Gartner, p260

50

Controversy, Alderman, p313

51

Modern British Jewry, Alderman, p102